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 . . .

What’s on the horizon? A focus on dispute resolution in the Year of the Rooster What's on the horizon? A focus on dispute resolution in the Year of the Rooster 1 What to expect in the Year of the Rooster In this bulletin we examine some of the key dispute resolution and regulatory challenges facing business managers, financial controllers, and in-house counsel in the Year of the Rooster. 1.

On 3 June 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that a valid right of pledge can be established on goods that are delivered subject to retention of title (of ownership). If the buyer is declared bankrupt, the conditional ownership can become an unconditional ownership if the condition precedent is fulfilled (mostly full payment of the purchase price). Next to the buyer, the pledgee can also fulfil this condition. As a consequence, these goods are not part of the bankrupt estate, so that the pledgee can take recourse against these goods.

The facts

Op 3 juni 2016 heeft de Hoge Raad geoordeeld dat er een geldig pandrecht kan worden gevestigd op zaken die onder eigendomsvoorbehoud zijn geleverd aan de koper. Indien de koper failliet wordt verklaard, kan het voorwaardelijke eigendomsrecht uitgroeien tot een onvoorwaardelijk eigendomsrecht door vervulling van de voorwaarde jegens de verkoper (veelal volledige betaling van de koopsom). Ook de pandhouder kan deze voorwaarde vervullen. Het gevolg hiervan is dat genoemde zaken niet in de faillissementsboedel vallen, maar dat de pandhouder hier verhaal op kan nemen.

In two months' time the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 will come into force (with effect from 6 April 2017). This date has been long in the making the first draft of the new rules was published in September 2013.

The new rules are not intended to change the law. Their main aim is to consolidate provisions in order to reduce repetition, ensure that there is a more logical structure and modernise and simplify the language (including gender neutral drafting).

This briefing highlights a few of the key changes.

Het is pandhouders op grond van artikel 3:246 lid 1 Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW) toegestaan om een pandrecht op vorderingen uit te winnen door middel van het opeisen van de vordering. Deze bevoegdheid omvat tevens het recht om zekerheidsrechten uit te winnen die aan de verpande vordering zijn verbonden. Dit is bevestigd in een arrest van de Hoge Raad van 18 december 2015 (ABN AMRO / Marell).

Feiten