A recent court ruling is a good reminder to health care providers that bankruptcy may not (as is sometimes suggested) be a safe harbor for providers in danger of being forced out of business by the loss of their Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements.
Following the lead of the Illinois Supreme Court in In re Pension Reform Litigation, 2015 IL 118585 [see Illinois and New Jersey Pension Decisions: Implications for Bondholders], Judge Rita Novak of the Circuit Court of Cook County has ruled that an Illinois law modifying provisions of Chicago’s pension statute violated the Illinois Constitution.
In the Matter of J.D Brian Limited (In Liquidation) T/A East Coast Print and Publicity, In the Matter of J.D. Brian Motors Limited (In Liquidation) T/A Belgard Motors and In the Matter of East Coast Car Parts Limited (In Liquidation) and In the Matter of the Companies Acts 1963 to 2009 (the Companies)
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
The EBA updated its Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) on supervisory reporting of liquidity coverage ratios (LCR) for EU credit institutions. The updated ITS includes new templates and instructions for credit institutions so as to ensure compliance with the European Commission's Delegated Act adopted in October 2014. In addition the ITS outline all the necessary steps needed for the calculation of the ratio. The amended ITS are only applicable to credit institutions and not to investment firms and will only become applicable following publication in the EU Official Journal.
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.
The Department of Justice and Equality has announced that the Government is to introduce legislation before the summer recess giving Courts the power to review and, where appropriate, approve insolvency deals that have been rejected by banks. This process will represent a reform of the Personal Insolvency framework and "seeks to ensure that fair and sustainable deals are upheld for struggling borrowers willing to work their way out of difficulties with a view to keeping their family home."
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.