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 January 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated opinion in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., 1 ruling that Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. § 77ppp(b) (the “Act”), prohibits only non-consensual amendments to core payment terms of bond indentures.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently articulated a standard to determine what claims may be barred against a purchaser of assets "free and clear" of claims pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code and highlighted procedural due process concerns with respect to enforcement.¹  The decision arose out of litigation regarding certain defects, including the well-known "ignition switch defect," affecting certain GM vehicles.  GM's successor (which acquired GM's assets in a section 363 sale in 2009) asserted that a "free and clear" provisi

1. Inleiding

Dit is onze halfjaarlijkse nieuwsbrief over ontwikkelingen op het gebied van het Nederlandse vennootschaps- en ondernemingsrecht. In deze Corporate Update geven wij eerst een overzicht van enkele wetswijzigingen. Verder gaan we in op de stand van zaken van een aantal lopende wetsvoorstellen en tot slot signaleren wij nog enkele overige actualiteiten.

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.

De wetsvoorstellen civielrechtelijk bestuursverbod en herziening strafbaarstelling faillissementsfraude behoren tot het Wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht en zijn gericht op fraudebestrijding.  De verwachting was dat beide wetsvoorstellen op 1 januari 2016 in werking zouden treden, maar dit is niet gehaald.

Op 23 juni 2015 zijn de wetsvoorstellen civielrechtelijk bestuursverbod en herziening strafbaarstelling faillissementsfraude door de Tweede Kamer aangenomen. Beide wetsvoorstellen behoren tot het Wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht en zijn gericht op fraudebestrijding. Deze wetsvoorstellen zullen mogelijk op 1 januari 2016 in werking treden. 

Het wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht bestaat uit drie pijlers, te weten (i) fraudebestrijding; (ii) versterking van het reorganiserend vermogen van bedrijven; en (iii) modernisering van het faillissementsrecht.

The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. ^[1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.

Background

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.