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.
In the Matter of J.D Brian Limited (In Liquidation) T/A East Coast Print and Publicity, In the Matter of J.D. Brian Motors Limited (In Liquidation) T/A Belgard Motors and In the Matter of East Coast Car Parts Limited (In Liquidation) and In the Matter of the Companies Acts 1963 to 2009 (the Companies)
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.
The Minister for Justice and Equality has brought more provisions of the Insolvency Act 2012 (the Act) into force and has designated 1 March 2013 as the establishment day of the Insolvency Service of Ireland.
Under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 (Commencement) (No. 2) Order 2013, the following provisions of the Act came into operation on 1 March 2013:
On 26 December last, the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 was signed into law by the President.
The various provisions of the Act will come into force through commencement orders which will be made by the Minister for Justice. It is expected that certain sections of the Act relating to its Establishment Day and related provisions, will be commenced shortly.
The remaining provisions will then come into operation on a phased basis under Section 1(2) of the Act, as designated by orders to be made by the Minister.
The Irish telecommunications company eircom recently successfully concluded its restructuring through the Irish examinership process. This examinership is both the largest in terms of the overall quantum of debt that was restructured and also the largest successful restructuring through examinership in Ireland to date. The speed with which the restructuring of this strategically important company was concluded was due in large part to the degree of pre-negotiation between the company and its lenders before the process commenced.
In this recession like no other, enforcement over complete and incomplete residential and other property developments is a common scenario faced by both bank and Insolvency Practitioner alike. The dilemma initially appears quite stark; Should the bank advance further monies to complete out developments in order to maximise realisations or sell the site "as is" to another developer but at a significantly discounted price? The purpose of this article is to consider the issues which warrant consideration before devising an enforcement strategy in relation to incomplete developments.
Recent attempts by the Zoe Group to seek court protection have raised the profile of examinerships. The main legal test to enter the process is: does the company have a reasonable prospect of survival. But what are the key ingredients for a successful examinership?