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."
The change provides clarity regarding the pledges over credit rights, restoring pledges as effective and efficient security interests.
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.
Royal Decree Law 4/2014, intended to promote efficiency in Spanish insolvency proceedings, is officially enacted with some important updates.
The Spanish legislature has finally enacted Royal Decree Law 4/2014 (the March Reform). Now known as Law 17/2014, of 30 September (the Act), the new law implements urgent measures regarding refinancing and restructuring of corporate debt. In addition to formally enacting the March Reform, the Spanish legislature included a few updates that are worth highlighting.
Pre-Insolvency Communication
Luxembourg court decisions allow secured lenders to enforce Gecina share pledge.
A controversial insolvency dispute winding its way through courts in Spain and Luxembourg may reinforce the rights of secured lenders to enforce financial collateral within an insolvency proceeding. While the recent Luxembourg Tribunal decision enforcing a financial collateral pledge for payment default appears to favor the secured lenders, a potentially contradictory decision from the Spanish Commercial Courts throws the issue into uncertain territory.
Market participants welcome a clarification extending equitable subordination exemptions granted Sareb to those subsequently purchasing debt from Sareb.
On November 30, 2013, the Spanish legislator approved a recent amendment to Spanish insolvency law, introduced in March 2013, to clarify that a claim transferred to Spanish “bad bank” Sareb, and subsequently sold by Sareb to a third party, will also be exempt from equitable subordination risk.
Background
Proceedings from the Courts’ seminar on the homologation of refinancing agreements clarify some material uncertainties.
Background