The Bankruptcy Protector
On January 3rd, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an opinion in U.S. v. Parish Chemical Company, in which it addressed the issue of equitable mootness in a non-bankruptcy appeal.
Facts of the Case
Recent Development
The Turkish Parliament enacted a law amending the composition (tr. "konkordato," a Turkish scheme of arrangement) articles in the Code of Enforcement and Bankruptcy in response to widespread abuse of the composition proceedings. The changes are effective as of the date of promulgation on the Official Gazette, 19 December 2018, with pending applications remaining subject to the previous version of the provisions.
The Amendments
The major amendments are summarized below.
Yeni Gelişme
Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, konkordato sürecinin suiistimal edildiğine ilişkin gelen tepkileri göz önünde bulundurarak, İcra ve İflas Kanunu'ndaki konkordato hükümlerinde değişiklikler öngören kanun teklifini yasalaştırmıştır. Değişiklikler 19 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Resmi Gazete’de yayımlanarak yürürlüğe girmiştir. Ancak görülmekte olan konkordato talepleri hakkında önceki hükümler uygulanmaya devam edecektir.
Kabul Edilen Değişiklikler
Önemli değişiklikler aşağıda özetlenmiştir.
District Court Confirms Bankruptcy Court’s Constitutional Authority to Approve Millennium Plan Releases, Dismisses as Equitably Moot Opt-Out Lenders' Remaining Issues on Appeal
Recent Development
The Law on the Amendments to the Code of Enforcement and Bankruptcy and Certain Laws ("Law No. 7101") was published on the Official Gazette on March 15, 2018.
Background
As a result of the studies conducted by the Coordination Council for the Improvement of the Investment Environment, the Law No. 7101 was introduced to the Turkish Parliament.
In Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Old Cold LLC (In re Old Cold LLC), 879 F.3d 376 (1st Cir. 2018), the First Circuit held that a sale in possible violation of the Supreme Court’s Jevic decision does not allow an appellate court to examine the merits of the sale when the sale-approval order otherwise is statutorily moot under section 363(m).
Delaware District Judge Leonard P. Stark has seemingly split with the Second Circuit and held that the safe harbor in Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not bar fraudulent transfer claims brought on behalf of creditors under state law, ratifying a June 2016 opinion from Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross.
The Bankruptcy Protector
Back in September, the Bankruptcy Protector announced that was introducing a new periodic series: theJevic Files. As promised, we have published intermittent updates identifying cases where Jevic priority skipping issues are raised and adjudicated.
In this post, we attempt to provide a succinct summary of all cases decided post-Jevic.
How Courts Are Applying Jevic
If, like me, you have ever scratched your head in confusion while preparing your taxes and thought to yourself – “I can’t believe the IRS takes such an absurd position on xyz tax exemption I want to use – who comes up with these crazy positions?” – then you might take some pleasure in a recent opinion from Judge Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware calling an argument made by the IRS “strained and a bit confusing.” You read that right.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument today inU.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge (15-1509). At issue in the case is whether the appropriate standard of review for determining non-statutory insider status is the de novo standard of review applied by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 7th and 10th Circuits, or the clearly erroneous standard of review adopted for the first time by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Village at Lake Ridge.