In bankruptcy cases under chapter 11, debtors sometimes opt for a "structured dismissal" when a consensual plan of reorganization or liquidation cannot be reached or conversion to chapter 7 would be too costly. In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973, 2017 BL 89680 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow bankruptcy courts to approve distributions in structured dismissals which violate the Bankruptcy Code's ordinary priority rules.

On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. The Court's decision could resolve a circuit split as to whether section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code can shield from fraudulent conveyance attack transfers made through financial institutions where such financial institutions are merely "conduits" in the relevant transaction.

On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. See FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 830 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2016) (a discussion of the Seventh Circuit's ruling is available here).

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 22, 2017, in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., that without the consent of affected creditors, bankruptcy courts may not approve "structured dismissals" providing for distributions that "deviate from the basic priority rules that apply under the primary mechanisms the [Bankruptcy] Code establishes for final distributions of estate value in business bankruptcies."

BH Apartments v Sutherland Nominees [2015] VSC 381

The costs of ‘convening’. Whether the person requesting a meeting of creditors, pursuant to 5.6.15(1)(b) of the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) be called is only liable for the costs of calling the meeting.

Sutherland Nominees Pty Ltd (Sutherland) was being administered pursuant to a deed of company arrangement under part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Di Cioccio v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Di Cioccio) [2015] FCAFC 30

Whether inconsistency between Div 4B of Pt VI, s 58(1)(b) in Div 4 of Pt IV and s 116 of Pt VI of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)

An appeal from the decision of Di Cioccio v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2014] FCA 782.

In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.

Turner v Gorkowski [2014] VSCA 248

Whether application seeking a declaration for or against the title of the trustee to a trustee in bankruptcy under s 58(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) is a ‘special federal matter’ within the meaning of s 6(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting Act) 1987 (Cth).

On appeal, the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal transferred a proceeding initiated in the Supreme Court to the Federal Court.

Di Cioccio v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2014] FCA 782

Examination of whether shares purchased from a bankrupt’s income below the threshold amount in respect of which he was required to make contributions to his trustee under Division 4B of Part 6 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966(Cth) is within the meaning of “after acquired property” in s 58(1).

Central Cleaning Supplies (Aust) Pty Ltd v Elkerton [2014] VSC 61.

Appeal from liquidators’ decision to reject claim for the return of cleaning equipment subject to retention of title. Consideration of retention of title clauses and the application of the transitional security agreements under Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth).