In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow bankruptcy courts to approve distributions to creditors in a "structured dismissal" of a chapter 11 case that violate the Bankruptcy Code's ordinary priority rules without the consent of creditors. However, because the Court declined to express any "view about the legality of structured dismissals in general," many open questions remain regarding the structured dismissal mechanism.

In In re Golden Sphinx Ltd., 2023 WL 2823391 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2023), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California denied a motion filed by a creditor of a chapter 15 debtor seeking discovery from a bank that had provided financing to one of the debtor's affiliates.

There is longstanding controversy concerning the validity of third-party release provisions in non-asbestos trust chapter 11 plans that limit the potential exposure of various non-debtor parties involved in the process of negotiating, implementing and funding a plan. In the latest chapter of this debate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down a long-awaited ruling regarding the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in the chapter 11 plan of pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma, Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, "Purdue").

To prevent landlords under long-term real property leases from reaping a windfall for future rent claims at the expense of other creditors, the Bankruptcy Code caps the amount of a landlord's claim against a debtor-tenant for damages "resulting from the termination" of a real property lease.

To shield bankruptcy trustees and certain other entities from litigation arising from actions taken in their official capacity, the "Barton doctrine"—now more than a century old—provides that such litigation may be commenced only with the authority of the appointing court. The doctrine has certain exceptions, one of which—the "ultra vires exception"—was recently examined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as an apparent matter of first impression.

If any class of creditors under a chapter 11 plan is "impaired," the Bankruptcy Code provides that the plan can be confirmed by the bankruptcy court only if at least one impaired class of non-insider creditors votes to accept the plan. This "impaired class acceptance" requirement—stated in section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code—is straightforward in cases involving a single debtor, or in cases where the bankruptcy estates of several debtors are "substantively consolidated" so that the assets and liabilities of each debtor are deemed to belong to a single consolidated entity.

Corporate restructurings are not always successful for many reasons. As a consequence, the bankruptcy and restructuring laws of the United States and many other countries recognize that a failed restructuring may be followed by a liquidation or winding-up of the company, either through the commencement of a separate liquidation or winding-up proceeding, or by the conversion of the restructuring to a liquidation. Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code expressly contemplates that the status of a recognized foreign proceeding may change, and that a U.S.

Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the reversal or modification of an order approving a sale or lease of assets in bankruptcy does not affect the validity of the sale or lease to a good-faith purchaser or lessee unless the party challenging the sale or lease obtains a stay pending its appeal of the order.

Exculpation clauses limiting the liability of certain entities for actions taken in connection with a bankruptcy case are a common feature of chapter 11 plans. However, courts disagree over the permitted scope of such clauses. They also disagree as to whether an order confirming a chapter 11 plan that includes exculpation and third-party release provisions is insulated from appellate review under the doctrine of "equitable mootness."

In Short

The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which limits a party's ability to undo an asset transfer made to a good-faith purchaser in a bankruptcy case, is jurisdictional.