Hong Kong, Capital Markets, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, Due diligence, Initial public offerings
Hong Kong, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, Court of First Instance (Hong Kong)
Hong Kong, Compliance Management, Construction, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, Bankruptcy, Contempt of court, Costs, Court of First Instance (Hong Kong)
- Introduction
- Recent case
- Court's obiter comments
- Comment
Introduction
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).
USA, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Supreme Court of the United States, United States bankruptcy court