On July 26, 2016, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Bankruptcy Code section 546(e) "safe harbor" applicable to constructive fraudulent transfers that are settlement payments made in connection with securities contracts does not protect "transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions (or the other entities named in section 546(e)), where the entity is neither the debtor nor the transferee but only the conduit."FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 2016 BL 243677.

Introduction

The Supreme Court will consider these key questions next term in Czyzewski v Jevic Holding Corp:(1)

The Supreme Court again will be addressing the powers of bankruptcy courts. At the end of the term, the Court granted certiorari in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. to decide whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the distribution of settlement proceeds in a way that violates the statutory priority scheme in the Bankruptcy Code. No. 15-649, 2016 WL 3496769 (S. Ct. June 28, 2016). The Supreme Court is expected to address this fundamental bankruptcy issue sometime early next year.

Background

On June 28, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a Third Circuit-affirmed settlement and dismissal of the chapter 11 cases of Jevic Transportation, Inc. (“Jevic”) and certain of its affiliates. SeeOfficial Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Grp./Bus. Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), 787 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. grantedCzyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 2016 WL 3496769 (U.S. 2016).

In recent years, constructively fraudulent transfer claims asserted in bankruptcy cases, especially those arising from LBOs and similar shareholder transactions, have hit a major road block.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently issued an opinion that addresses, among other issues, the question of whether section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code preempts certain fraudulent transfer avoidance actions brought under state law. In re Physiotherapy Holdings Inc., No. 15-51238 (Bankr. D. Del. June 20, 2016).

The recent case of Mervyn’s LLC v Lubert-Adler Group IV, LLC, et al. (In re Mervyn’s Holdings, LLC),1 serves as a warning to sellers and equity firms participating in leveraged buyouts to be wary of the effect such buyouts will have on creditors of the target company.

Seeking to have an independent examiner investigate a debtor or its management can be a powerful tool available to creditors and other interested parties in a bankruptcy case. Typically, a party might request that an examiner be appointed if the debtor or its management is suspected of fraud or other misconduct. The low cost associated with making the request, together with recent positive outcomes for requesting creditors, may help to increasingly popularize the use of examiner requests by parties seeking leverage in bankruptcy plan negotiations.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides for the appointment of a bankruptcy examiner to investigate the debtor with respect to allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct or mismanagement. The right examiner, with a clearly defined mission, will have a major influence on the bankruptcy process. The difference between a successful financial restructuring or liquidation-resulting in substantial recoveries for the key constituencies-and a time-consuming (and asset-consuming) meltdown, can depend on the approach of the examiner and the examiner's support team.

Introduction

In Geltzer v. Mooney (In re MacMenamin’s Grill, Ltd.), Adv. Pro. No. 09-8266 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 21, 2011), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to a small, private leveraged buyout (LBO) transaction that posed no systemic risk to the stability of the financial markets.