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.

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 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:

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.

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.

Chief Judge Cecelia G. Morris of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York decided that banks may not place an administrative freeze, even a temporary one, on the bank account of an individual who files for bankruptcy.

* This article was first published by INSOL International on April 17, 2015.

The bankruptcy case of Energy Future Holdings (EFH) and its affiliates has already provided the Delaware bankruptcy court occasion to tackle a number of important bankruptcy questions, including the propriety of using tender offers to settle noteholder claims during the pendency of the case.

A recent Delaware District Court decision concerning an appeal of a bankruptcy settlement clearly provides support for the use of tender offers or other exchange, or settlement mechanics permitted under applicable federal securities laws prior to and outside a plan of reorganization. In essence, this decision permits debtors to utilize exchange offers to repurchase outstanding securities at a discount, or obtain more favorable terms during a bankruptcy proceeding and prior to confirmation of a plan of reorganization.

Case Summary

The Second Circuit in Krys v. Farnum Place (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.)¹ denied a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc by Appellee Farnum Place, LLC (Farnum), a hedge fund that sought to protect its purchase of a $230 million claim against the bankruptcy estate of Bernard L.