In our article, Jevic: The Supreme Court Gives Structure to Chapter 11 Structured Dismissal, we discussed the narrow holding of Czyzewski et al., v. Jevic Holding Corp., et al., 137 S. Ct. 973, 985 (2017) (“Jevic”), which prohibits non-consensual structured dismissals that violate the Bankruptcy Code’s priority principles.

On May 3, 2017, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the “Oversight Board”), acting on behalf of the cash-strapped Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Commonwealth”), filed for bankruptcy protection in the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth’s Title III Petition for Covered Territory or Covered Instrumentality (the “Petition”) was filed in accordance with Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”), codified at 48 U.S.C. § 2161, et seq.

Last year we reported (here) that Alberta’s Redwater Energy Corporation decision signaled good news for lenders and noteholders secured by Alberta O&G assets because the federal Canadian Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) prevailed over conflicting provisions in the provincial regulations promulgated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”).

Last year, we reported that Australia had proposed significant insolvency reforms that, in our view, are long overdue ("A Major Leap Forward for Australian Insolvency Laws").

On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court, in Czyzewski et al., v. Jevic Holding Corp., et al., confirmed that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit “priority skipping” in Chapter 11 structured dismissals. In doing so, the Court held that, although the Code does not explicitly provide what, if any, priority rules apply to the distribution of estate assets in a Chapter 11 structured dismissal, “[a] distribution scheme in connection with the dismissal of a Chapter 11 case cannot, without the consent of the affected parties, deviate from the basic priority rules that apply under the . . .

The potential cost of making or defending a claim is often a concern for anyone involved in litigation or arbitration. AG has since 2008 been at the forefront of sharing the risk with its clients, and the litigation funding market has responded with a variety of different options and opportunities. And it's also a developing topic for the courts. Our Control Update newsletter reports all the latest developments, both commercial and legal.

Litigation funders – extent of their involvement and liability for costs

If you would prefer not to receive this service from Addleshaw Goddard, please email: [email protected] TRUSTEE QUARTERLY UPDATE Pensions 1 December 2016 Court holds Bankrupt cannot be forced to draw scheme benefits to pay creditors In its judgment in Horton v Henry the Court of Appeal has held that where a bankrupt member has a right to draw benefits, but has not yet chosen to do so (a) his rights to future benefits under the scheme are not "

Reversing the lower courts, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has today held that, under New York law (which governs 95% of all indentures), the early repayment of indenture notes in Chapter 11 is an optional redemption requiring the payment of make-whole notwithstanding the automatic acceleration of the notes due to the Chapter 11 filing. Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), Case No. 16-1251 (5th Cir. Nov. 17, 2016).

The English courts have been careful to control the circumstances in which a constructive trust will be declared.

Introduction

Court holds Bankrupt cannot be forced to draw scheme benefits to pay creditors

In its judgment in Horton v Henry the Court of Appeal has held that where a bankrupt member has acquired a right to draw benefits, but has not yet done so (a) his rights under the scheme are not "income" over which the court can make an income payments order under section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986; and (b) the trustee in bankruptcy cannot compel the member to take his benefits.

Background