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 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 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

Overview

On 18 November 2009, the Commission approved a restructuring and asset relief package for KBC under the EC State aid rules. KBC is a Belgian integrated banking and insurance group, based primarily in Belgium and Central and Eastern Europe. KBC has received three aid measures to support it during the economic crisis: in December 2008 a recapitalisation of €3.5 billion; in June 2009, a second recapitalisation of €3.5 billion and an asset relief measure on a portfolio of Collateralised Debt Obligations (“CDO”). Approval of these measures was subject to KBC submitting a restructuring plan.

On 13 November 2009, the Commission approved a restructuring plan for ING Groep NV under the EC State aid rules. ING is a Dutch financial institution, offering its services in over 40 countries. In October 2008, the Commission approved the liquidity guarantees of €12 billion offered by the Dutch government to support ING during the economic crisis.

On the 12 November 2009, the OFT launched a market study into corporate insolvency. The investigation was prompted by concerns raised with the Government and the Insolvency Service, and also following a recent World Bank report which showed that the costs of closing a business in the UK are higher than in other countries.