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 November 17th, Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. ("LBSF") and its official unsecured creditors' committee filed a joint motion to stay BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited's ("BNY") appeal for 90 days in the "Dante" matter, pending final settlement of the dispute between LBSF and Perpetual Trustee Company Limited ("Perpetual").
On September 20th, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited ("BNY") leave to appeal the bankruptcy court's decision in the Lehman "Dante" matter. In its January decision, the bankruptcy court had voided certain document provisions providing for the subordination of a swap counterparty's rights to an early termination payment when the swap counterparty or one of its close affiliates went into bankruptcy. BNY holds the collateral subject to this dispute.
In a decision filed on July 7th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court decision upholding a bankruptcy court order granting summary judgment to American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. (American Home) in connection with a repurchase transaction entered into in 2007 under which American Home sold certain certificates to Bear Stearns International Ltd. (Bear Stearns) for $19,534,000 and agreed to re-purchase the certificates at a later date for $19,636,879.07. In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc., 2010 WL 2676383 (3d Cir.