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."

Summary

The German Federal Court has recently examined the treatment of shareholder loans and how these creditor claims are classified in the event of a company’s insolvency (decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dated 13 October 2016 (file no. IX ZR 184/14)).

Background

Background

Pursuant to Sec. 15 para. 1 of the German Insolvency Code (lnsolvenzordnung, lnsO) the managing directors of a company may individually file a request to open insolvency proceedings on behalf of the company, even if they only have joint power of representation together with other managing directors. This special right to file the request on behalf of the company prevails over the general or agreed provisions regarding the power of representation of the directors.

The Rules

Based on a referral by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) the ECJ held that provisions such as § 64 of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG) which regulates the personal liability of German GmbH directors in cases of insolvency, can be regarded as an insolvency law rule by virtue of Art. 4 para. 1 European Insolvency Regulation. The provision can therefore be applicable to a UK limited company (having its centre of main interest in Germany) and its director respectively, in accordance with European law: according to Art. 4 para.

Minor instalment payments alone – also in the event of late payments – may not be sufficient to trigger knowledge of the debtor’s imminent illiquidity within the meaning of section 133 German Insolvency Act

Overview

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.

Facts

The U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of existing liens, but does not permit a secured creditor to credit-bid at the sale. The unanimous ruling written by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kennedy recused) resolved a split among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a debtor's chapter 11 plan is confirmable when it proposes an auction sale of a secured creditor's assets free and clear of liens without permitting that creditor to "credit bid" its claims but instead provides the creditor with the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2011).

Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.