In a May 4, 2015 opinion1 , the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 repayment plan is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. The Supreme Court found that, in contrast to an order confirming a plan or dismissing a case, an order denying confirmation of a plan neither alters the status quo nor fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. Although the decision arose in the context of a chapter 13 plan, it should apply with equal force to chapter 11 cases.
On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.
In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court:
Dealing a major blow to the trustee’s efforts to recover fraudulent transfers on behalf of the bankruptcy estate of the company run by Bernard Madoff, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held in SIPC v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC1 that the Bankruptcy Code cannot be used to recover fraudulent transfers of funds that occur entirely outside the United States.
In our e-updates of 20 January 2010 and 16 August 2010, we looked at decisions of the English and Scottish courts from December 2009 and August 2010 in which it was decided that, in England and Scotland respectively, the Administrators of a tenant company are bound to account to the landlord of premises for rent due in relation to the period during which those premises are being u
Our government has a longstanding commitment to cutting red tape. One of the ways of doing this it seems is to propose an Act of Parliament running to 153 pages. Thus we are presented with the Deregulation Bill.
A few of the provisions of this Bill relate to insolvency. The most significant are:
Appeal Judges in the Court of Session yesterday issued a decision directing that the liquidators of Scottish Coal Company (SCC) cannot abandon sites or disclaim statutory licences imposing obligations on the company.
A recent overruling by the Supreme Court has revoked the priority status of pension schemes issued with a Financial Support Direction (FSD) or Contribution Notice (CN) by the Pensions Regulator, following an insolvency event. Whilst the decision largely affects companies operating within England and Wales, Scottish Courts are expected to be guided by the ruling.
The 2011 decision
OSCR report issued following investigation of benefits to employee on wind-up
Lazari GP Ltd v Jervis
When a company goes into administration, it benefits from a "moratorium" that prevents creditors taking legal and other proceedings against the company or its assets. The main purpose of the moratorium is to free an administrator's rescue attempts from the distractions of legal action from creditors.