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.

Case: The joint administrators of African Minerals Limited (in administration) v Madison Pacific Trust Limited and Shangdong Steel Hong Kong Zengli Limited (HCMP 865 of 2015)

On 26 March 2015, the Deregulation Bill and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill received Royal Assent.  These Acts make a number of important changes to the law affecting directors, insolvency law and regulation. 

The changes affect (among other things) directors’ liabilities, the powers of administrators and the rights of creditors. While some changes are relevant to all those advising companies and directors, others are of interest principally to insolvency officeholders.

Case: (The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme (Appellants) v Olympic Airlines SA (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 27)

On 9 April the Polish Parliament adopted a bill implementing the so-called “second chance” policy for businesses, pursued at the EU level.

The Act introduces a clear separation between restructuring proceedings and bankruptcy proceedings. As the latter are commonly perceived as stigmatising, the initiation of bankruptcy can hinder successful restructuring. The new Act introduces four new types of restructuring proceedings, i.e.:

The Supreme Court has held that, where a company had been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, the directors’ wrong-doing could not be attributed to the company to prevent it (or its liquidators) from bringing claims against the directors. 

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.