On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.

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.

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 27 December 2016, the Board of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (“FSA”) analysed the status of the insurance and reinsurance undertaking LIG Insurance SA, ultimately, commencing bankruptcy procedures against LIG Insurance SA and withdrawing its license to carry on insurance and reinsurance activity (FSA Decision 2347/2016).

According to the FSA, on 31 October 2016 the company had: (i) negative own capital of RON 56.2 million; and (ii) a liquidity ratio of 0.44, resulting in concern over its capacity to cover its due obligations using own funds.

On 27 July 2016, the Board of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (“FSA”) analysed the status of the Romanian insurance undertaking Carpatica Asig SA, considering several audit and assessment reports. The outcome of the FSA analysis was the commencement of the bankruptcy procedures against Carpatica Asig SA.

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 26 August 2015, the Board of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (“FSA”) analysed the status of the Romanian insurance undertaking ASTRA SA, considering the report of the special administrator, KPMG Advisory. 

According to the FSA, on 30 June 2015, ASTRA SA had: (i) a negative available solvency margin of approximately RON 871 million (approximately EUR 197 million), (ii) a liquidity ratio of 0.03, and (iii) a capital shortage of approximately RON 968 million (approximately EUR 220 million). 

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