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."

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.

There is a recognised ambiguity in the transitional provisions of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA),relating to the issue of whether an ‘umbrella agreement’, governing the supply of goods on retention of title (RoT) terms entered into prior to 30 January 2012, will be an effective transitional security interest.

This corporate update summarises certain decisions in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court relating to the balance sheet insolvency test, agreements to agree and the exercise of contractual discretion. The decisions clarify the law in a number of areas of day-to-day relevance.

UK BALANCE SHEET INSOLVENCY TEST: Implications for lenders and borrowers

Background

There have been a number of recent English Court judgments of interest in the corporate field and this corporate update reports on cases relevant in relation to warranties and representations in M&A transactions, restrictive covenants in acquisition agreements, the enforcement of foreign judgments in cross-border insolvency proceedings and the piercing of the corporate veil.

WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS? - Ensuring clarity of intention when drafting acquisition agreements

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 29 February 2012, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment concerning the treatment of client money in the long-running administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”).