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."

Key Points:

Although they should always keep time-frames very much in mind, the decision in BKA Practice Co Pty Ltd gives liquidators greater scope to find all possible time-frames in which they have to work.

Key Points:

Complex cross-border issues can be dealt with relatively easily under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act as long as flexibility is built into the relevant orders.

There's been a drop-off, but Peter Bowden says things might be about to change.

Click here to watch video.

Key Points:

A DOCA can extinguish claims under a guarantee, even where those claims arise following the DOCA's termination.

If the underlying debt has already been extinguished by a DOCA, can a secured creditor still enforce the charge? A recent case explored the role of section 444D(2) of the Corporations Act in this situation, with implications for parties seeking to rely on guarantees from companies that have been through a DOCA (Australian Gypsum Industries Pty Ltd v Dalesun Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 95).

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.

Key Points:

Courts will limit an administrator's liability where proposed funding is to be used directly to advance an agenda consistent with the objects of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act.

A recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court highlights the flexibility of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act and the ability of administrators to seek orders protecting their interests and facilitating restructures, and was the first stage of what promises to be a novel and challenging administration (In the matter of Nexus Energy Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1041).