The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

De Hoge Raad heeft geoordeeld dat het adviesrecht van de ondernemingsraad in beginsel wel van toepassing is in geval van faillissement. Hierbij formuleert de Hoge Raad drie richtlijnen:

In de Employment Update van april jl. informeerden wij u al over het feit dat de Advocaat-Generaal van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie ("HvJ") in zijn conclusie in de zaak Estro/Smallsteps het HvJ heeft geadviseerd, dat de Richtlijn Overgang van Onderneming gewoon van toepassing dient te zijn op zogenaamde pre-pack faillissementen. Een pre-pack faillissement betekent - in het kort - dat een doorstart volgend op een faillissement al vóór de faillietverklaring in stilte wordt voorbereid met de hulp van een "beoogd curator".

De pre-pack procedure is mogelijk een kort leven beschoren. Bij deze procedure wordt al vóór het uitspreken van het faillissement een doorstart voorbereid door de aanwijzing van een "beoogd curator". De wet die deze wettelijk moet verankeren in het Nederlandse insolventierecht in 2016 is aangenomen door de Tweede Kamer, maar moet nog van kracht worden.

On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts cannot approve a “structured dismissal”—a dismissal with special conditions or that does something other than restoring the “prepetition financial status quo”—providing for distributions that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme absent the consent of affected creditors. Czyzewski v.Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066259, at *3 (Mar. 22, 2017).

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it.  The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code.  In In re Tribune Co.

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit") held that in rare instances a bankruptcy court may approve a "structured dismissal"- that is, a dismissal "that winds up the bankruptcy with certain conditions attached instead of simply dismissing the case and restoring the status quo ante" - that deviates from the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme. See Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), Case No.

Earlier this year, we reported on a decision limiting a secured creditor's right to credit bid purchased debt (capping the credit bid at the discounted price paid for the debt) to facilitate an auction in Fisker Automotive Holdings' chapter 11 case.¹ In the weeks that followed, the debtor held a competitive (nineteen-round) auction and ultimately selected Wanxiang America Corporation, rather than the secured creditor, as the w

Overview