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:

German Federal Court of Justice decision paves the way for bond restructurings under 2009 Bonds Act.

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.

Frank Grell is a partner at Latham & Watkins who chairs the firm’s German Restructuring and Insolvency Practice. In this interview, he reflects on several successful applications of the German Insolvency Act (Insolvenzordnung) since the law was passed in 2012 and the continued shift towards a restructuring-based approach to large corporate insolvencies.

Frank Grell is a partner at Latham & Watkins who chairs the firm’s German Restructuring and Insolvency Practice. Grell reflects on some of the major changes brought about by Germany’s 2012 Insolvency Act (Insolvenzordnung), including an increase in the rights of creditors in the proceedings over the assets of German companies, the introduction of “protective shield” proceedings and a reduction in the negative stigma previously associated with restructuring and insolvency.

The German Insolvency Code requires the management of German limited liability companies (GmbH), stock corporations (AG) and other entities without personal liability to file for the commencement of insolvency proceedings no later than three weeks after the entity has become illiquid (zahlungsunfähig) or overindebted (überschuldet).  

English schemes of arrangement under the Companies Act 2006 (Schemes) have been increasingly used by non-English companies as a powerful tool to restructure their financial indebtedness. Recent prominent examples of German companies that have utilized Schemes to cramdown non-consenting or “holdout” creditors in order to restructure the company’s balance sheet include TeleColumbus, Rodenstock and Primacom.

There are several reasons for this trend:

We would like to introduce you to a great new feature of the revised German Insolvency Act which makes debt-equity-swaps in Germany (e.g., as part of loan-to-own transactions) a lot more attractive. It eliminates troubles caused by change-of-control provisions in agreements between an insolvent company and third parties.

Introduction: Debt-Equity- Swaps Now Possible Under German Insolvency Act