In a May 4, 2015 opinion¹ , the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 repayment plan is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. The Supreme Court found that, in contrast to an order confirming a plan or dismissing a case, an order denying confirmation of a plan neither alters the status quo nor fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. Although the decision arose in the context of a chapter 13 plan, it should apply with equal force to chapter 11 cases.

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.

In the past decade, Chapter 11 practice has witnessed the rise of a new phenomenon: structured dismissals.¹ Broadly speaking, the term structured dismissal is an umbrella term for a dismissal order that includes additional bells and whistles, such as releases, protocols for claims administration or provisions permitting the gifting of assets to junior stakeholders. Like a Chapter 11 plan, a structured dismissal often identifies how proceeds are to be distributed while retaining jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court for claims administration and other specified matters.

In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court:

On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wellness International Network, Ltd., et al. v. Sharif.¹ The Wellness decision clarifies one of the most significant open issues created four years ago by the Court’s highly controversial decision in Stern v.

In a May 4, 2015, decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected secured lenders’ appeals of a controversial bankruptcy court decision confirming the Chapter 11 plan of reorganization of MPM Silicones, LLC (also known as “Momentive”). The district court opinion, by Judge Vincent Briccetti, affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision that Momentive’s senior secured lenders could be “crammed down” at a below-market interest rate, without payment of a make-whole premium.

DERIVATIVES/ASSET MANAGEMENT/FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ADVISORY & FINANCIAL REGULATORY CLIENT PUBLICATION 12 May 2015 Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive – Implications for Repo and Derivative Counterparties The Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)1 introduces an EU-wide regime for recovery and resolution planning for, and for resolution action to be taken in respect of, banks and large investment firms (typically the large sell-side institutions) (FIs)2.

Europe's latest legislative response to the recent financial crisis — the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) — is intended to establish a minimum common toolbox for regulators in each member state to address bank solvency issues sooner, maintain key financial functions and minimize the impact of any failure.

The BRRD has to be implemented in each member state at the beginning of 2015 following its adoption by both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, and it follows other measures to improve banks' capital structure in order to make failure less likely.

New York's position as a global financial center means litigants often have sought to use New York courts as a forum to enforce judgments or arbitration awards against foreign entities. In reality, the burden of enforcement proceedings often falls on third parties, such as financial institutions that hold (or are alleged to hold) the judgment debtor's assets.

In 2014, the health care industry continued to see a high level of M&A activity, with announced transactions approaching $440 billion globally by the end of November. In the United States, consolidation continues to occur in the hospital and health care services subsector, often involving distressed health care providers. For many distressed providers — often small and midsized hospitals and hospital systems — acquisition by a financially strong counterparty is the only way to survive.