RSS | Print | PDF | Email Page

U.S. Supreme Court Invalidates Non-Consensual Structured Dismissal Deviating from Bankruptcy Priority Scheme

March 2017


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 22, 2017, in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., that without the consent of affected creditors, bankruptcy courts may not approve "structured dismissals" providing for distributions that "deviate from the basic priority rules that apply under the primary mechanisms the [Bankruptcy] Code establishes for final distributions of estate value in business bankruptcies."

Due to the significant time and costs associated with confirming a liquidating Chapter 11 plan or converting the case to Chapter 7 following a sale of substantially all of a debtor's assets under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, structured dismissals of Chapter 11 cases have become a popular exit strategy. A structured dismissal is conditioned upon certain elements agreed to in advance by stakeholders and then approved by the court, as distinguished from an unconditional dismissal of the Chapter 11 case ordered by the court under section 1112(b).

In In re Jevic Holding Corp., the Third Circuit ruled that "absent a showing that a structured dismissal has been contrived to evade the procedural protections and safeguards of the plan confirmation or conversion processes, a bankruptcy court has discretion to order such a disposition." The court also held that "bankruptcy courts may approve settlements that deviate from the priority scheme of [the Bankruptcy Code]," but only if the court has "specific and credible grounds" to justify the deviation. The Third Circuit approved a structured dismissal of a Chapter 11 case that incorporated a settlement under which unsecured creditors would receive a distribution from secured creditors' collateral, but certain holders of priority wage claims would receive nothing. "Dire circumstances" justified the remedy—the debtor had no prospect of confirming a plan, and conversion of the case to Chapter 7 would mean that only secured creditors would recover anything.

The Supreme Court reversed. Writing for the 6–2 majority, Justice Breyer stated that "we would expect to see some affirmative indication of intent if Congress actually meant to make structured dismissals a backdoor means to achieve the exact kind of nonconsensual priority-violating final distributions that the Code prohibits in Chapter 7 liquidations and Chapter 11 plans." The majority found no expression of any such intent in the Bankruptcy Code, nor did it find any "significant offsetting bankruptcy-related justification" that would warrant a violation of the ordinary priority rules in the case before it. Thus, it concluded that Congress did not authorize a "rare case" exception to the ordinary priority rules.

However, Justice Breyer wrote, "[w]e express no view about the legality of structured dismissals in general."

Lawyer Contacts

For further information, please contact your principal Firm representative or one of the lawyers listed below. General email messages may be sent using our "Contact Us" form, which can be found at www.jonesday.com/contactus/.

Bruce Bennett
Los Angeles / New York
+1.213.243.2382 / +1.212.326.3680
bbennett jonesday.com  

Brad B. Erens
Chicago
+1.312.269.4050
bberens jonesday.com  

Dan T. Moss
Washington
+1.202.879.3794
dtmoss jonesday.com  

Mark G. Douglas
New York
+1.212.326.3847
mgdouglas jonesday.com  

Jones Day publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our "Contact Us" form, which can be found on our web site at www.jonesday.com. The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.