Before soliciting votes on its bankruptcy plan, a chapter 11 debtor that has filed for bankruptcy typically must obtain court approval of its disclosure statement. As part of the disclosure-statement approval process, interested parties are afforded the opportunity to object. For example, a party may object on the grounds that the disclosure statement lacks sufficient information about the debtor. Sometimes, however, a party objects to the disclosure statement because the chapter 11 plan described by the statement cannot be confirmed.

On May 9, 2012, the English High Court, in Trillium (Nelson) Properties Ltd v Office Metro Ltd [2012] EWHC 1191 (Ch) (09 May 2012), for the first time ruled on the requirements governing the existence of an “establishment” under the EC Insolvency Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000) (the “Regulation”). Under the Regulation, “main” insolvency proceedings may be commenced on behalf of a debtor only in the single jurisdiction in which the debtor’s “centre of main interests” (commonly referred to as “COMI”) is located.

In the first circuit-level opinion on the issue, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Matson v. Alarcon, 651 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2011), held that, for purposes of establishing priority under section 507(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, an employee's severance pay was "earned" entirely upon termination of employment, even though the severance amount was determined by the employee's length of service with the employer.

Section 507(a)(4)

Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.

The early 2000s witnessed a wave of chapter 11 filings by entities with liability for asbestos personal-injury claims. The large number of filings was matched by the variety of legal strategies that companies pursued to address their asbestos liabilities in chapter 11. The chapter 11 case of Quigley Company, Inc. ("Quigley"), was one of the last large asbestos cases to file in the 2000s and represents one of the more interesting strategies for dealing with asbestos liabilities in chapter 11.

In almost all large chapter 11 cases where a debtor leases significant amounts of real property, the debtor’s ability to assume or reject its unexpired leases plays a significant role in the restructuring of the debtor’s business operations.

Lawmakers’ efforts to overhaul the nation’s bankruptcy laws two years ago as part of the sweeping reforms implemented by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA ”) failed to resolve a number of important business bankruptcy issues that have been and continue to be the subject of protracted debate among the bankruptcy and appellate courts.

Recent Developments in Bankruptcy and Restructuring
Volume 13 l No. 3 l May–June 2014 JONES DAY
Business
Restructuring
Review
Eighth Circuit Expands Subsequent New Value
Preference Defense in Cases Involving Three-Party
Relationships
Charles M Oellermann and Mark G. Douglas
A bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession has the power under section
547 of the Bankruptcy Code to avoid a transfer made immediately prior to
bankruptcy if the transfer unfairly prefers one or more creditors over the rest of

A ruling handed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on November 15, 2013, adds yet another chapter to the ongoing controversy concerning whether sold or assigned claims can be subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code on the basis of the seller’s receipt of a voidable transfer. The decision—In re KB Toys Inc., 2013 WL 6038248 (3d Cir. Nov. 15, 2013)—is an unwelcome missive for claims traders. For the first time since the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978, a circuit court of appeals has concluded that:

“Safe harbors” in the Bankruptcy Code designed to minimize “systemic risk”—disruption in the securities and commodities markets that could otherwise be caused by a counterparty’s bankruptcy filing—have been the focus of a considerable amount of judicial scrutiny in recent years. The latest contribution to this growing body of sometimes controversial jurisprudence was recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.