In a much anticipated decision issued on March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court determined in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. (Jevic) that a “structured dismissal” of a bankruptcy case cannot include a distribution scheme to creditors that does not comply with the priorities provided for under the Bankruptcy Code. The decision looks at the policy underlying “basic priority rules” in bankruptcy cases and, in doing so, throws into question the future use of negotiated settlements in bankruptcy cases where some, but not all, creditors receive a benefit.

In January 2017, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its widely reported opinion in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC vs. Education Management Corp., in which the majority held that the “right ... to receive payment” set forth in Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA) prohibits only nonconsensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms and does not protect the practical ability of bondholders to recover payment.

Background

A recent case in the Southern District of New York, U.S. Bank, NA v. T.D. Bank, NA, applied the so-called Rule of Explicitness to the allocation of recoveries among creditors outside of a bankruptcy proceeding. In the bankruptcy context, this rule requires a clear and unambiguous intention to turn over post-petition interest to senior creditors at the expense of junior creditors. The court in this case found the requisite documentary clarity to pay post-petition interest ahead of the distribution of principal.

In a decision last month, DCF Capital, LLC v. US Shale Solutions, LLC (Sup. Ct. NY Co. Jan. 24, 2017), a New York State Supreme Court justice held that a noteholder that had properly accelerated indenture debt may sue to collect that debt notwithstanding the operation of a standard no-action clause. This holding, while appealing from a noteholder perspective, may not be compelled by Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act on which it rests and is contrary to some prior case law.

Background

An unexpected controversy has arisen recently in the high-yield bond market, one involving limiting the available remedies following default in the wake of last year’s decision by the Southern District of New York in Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v.

By now, both indenture trustees and offices of the U.S. Trustee around the country are undoubtedly familiar with the Southern District of New York’s 2014 opinion in the case of In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., 508 B.R. 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (Lehman II), finding that individual committee members must establish a “substantial contribution” to the case under Section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code before the payment of their fees will be approved as part of a Chapter 11 plan. In the years since the Lehman II decision, however, U.S.

The Court of Appeal (CICA) has provided further clarification and guidance to Cayman Islands insolvency professionals on issues ranging from voidable transactions, the scope of liquidators’ powers and legal professional privilege, following the publication this month of a number of decisions that had come before the Court during the November 2016 Court sitting. Set out below is a summary of the Court’s findings in 3 of the CICA decisions which may be relevant to your day to day practice.

Voidable Transactions

In this thoroughly new and groundbreaking case it was held that where a creditor has already filed a winding up petition in respect of a company: (1) not only may the directors of the company parry by themselves applying for the appointment of JPLs; but (2) they may do so even without a shareholder resolution or express provision to do so in the company’s articles of association.

The last decade has exposed the bankruptcy courts across the globe to a large volume of international work, and with that experience in mind, the Judicial Insolvency Network (JIN) held its inaugural meeting in Singapore in late 2016. Its intent was to formulate a set of guidelines (theGuidelines) that would promote cooperation between Courts. Sitting alongside common law and legislative cross-border provisions, the Guidelines are a practical code to enhance some of the most successful cross-border initiatives of recent years.

Funds Talk: February 2017

Topics covered in this issue include: