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.

In In re Short Bark Industries Inc., 17-11502 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 11, 2017), Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware read the Supreme Court’s holding in Jevic narrowly in connection with a settlement of a dispute on DIP financing.

The bankruptcy bar is abuzz following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 15-649, 2017 BL 89680, 85 U.S.L.W. 4115 (Sup. Ct. March 22, 2017), holding that bankruptcy courts may not approve structured dismissals that do not adhere to the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.

Where an Administrator makes employees redundant ahead of a sale of the business, will it always be a dismissal connected with a transfer (and therefore automatically unfair), or can it ever be for "economic, technical or organisational" (ETO) reasons (and therefore potentially fair)? In Crystal Palace FC Ltd –v- Kavanagh & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1410, the Court of Appeal found for the latter, a more pragmatic, approach. Motivation, it appears, is everything in such cases. 

The role of Jersey as a financial centre means that on occasions there will be a requirement for a foreign liquidator or an office-holder under bankruptcy legislation to obtain information or documentation from persons or companies located in the Island. There have been a series of recent court decisions establishing the appropriate levels of co-operation with other jurisdictions.

A Jersey company or one of its creditors may wish the company to be placed into administration in England under Schedule B1 of the UK's Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act").