Two important and very different decisions regarding public pensions were recently issued by the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Supreme Court of New Jersey. These decisions are significant not only for the workers and taxpayers in these States, but also for the owners and insurers of municipal bonds issued in these States.

ILLINOIS

Latham & Watkins Benefits, Compensation & Employment Practice June 15, 2015 | Number 1844 FAQ: Recent Developments in US Law Affecting Pension and OPEB Claims in Restructurings (2015)1 From theory to practice, planning to enforcement, the answers to 42 of the most frequently asked questions can help you prepare, cope, or respond to a restructuring. This Client Alert answers some of the most frequently asked questions with respect to the treatment of pension-plan liabilities and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) obligations in US bankruptcies.

The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, Case No. 14-115, that a bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a debtor’s proposed plan is not a “final” order that can be immediately appealed. The Supreme Court’s decision implicates practical considerations within the bankruptcy process and the appropriate balance between the bargaining power of debtors and creditors.

Case Summary

On May 4, 2015, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, Case No. 14-115, that a bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a debtor’s proposed plan is not a “final” order that can be immediately appealed. The Supreme Court’s decision implicates practical considerations within the bankruptcy process and the appropriate balance between the bargaining power of debtors and creditors

Case Summary

What’s the News?

A US Bankruptcy Judge recently approved the sale of a package of RadioShack’s intellectual property assets—including consumer data obtained from RadioShack customers—to General Wireless Inc., the hedge fund affiliate that acquired over 1,700 RadioShack stores in February. The sale was not without controversy.

Much has been written in the past several years regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___ (2011) and Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Now, the Supreme Court has weighed in again in the case of Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd., et al v. Sharif, 575 U.S. ___ (2015) in an attempt to clarify the confusion created by Stern.

Hybrid US/European restructurings can lead to unexpected commercial outcomes because of different practices in intercreditor agreements.

Double First: A Ukrainian group of companies breaks ground — first by changing the governing law of its high yield bonds from US to English law and then by being the first Ukrainian-based group to restructure via an English law scheme of arrangement The Debate: Chapter 11 vs Scheme of Arrangement The restructuring market has for some time been engaged in a spirited debate about the appropriate forum in which to restructure US law governed high yield (HY) bonds issued by European and American corporates.

Bankruptcy Court reinforces importance of parties’ intent in determining the nature of overriding royalty interests under state law.

Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District Court for the District of Delaware reversed and remanded the decision of the Bankruptcy Court which approved a Bankruptcy Rule 9019 settlement that Judge Stark concluded had been inadequately noticed under the circumstances.