United States: Applying Jevic: How Courts Are Interpreting And Applying The Supreme Court's Ruling On Structured Dismissals And Priority Skipping

Last Updated: March 16 2018
Article by Shane G. Ramsey and John T. Baxter

Back in September, the Bankruptcy Protector announced that was introducing a new periodic series: the Jevic Files.  As promised, we have published intermittent updates identifying cases where Jevic priority skipping issues are raised and adjudicated. 

In this post, we attempt to provide a succinct summary of all cases decided post-Jevic.

How Courts Are Applying Jevic

The chart below includes all cases that have cited Jevic, current through November 17, 2017.  This chart includes the case name, date, and citation; a brief description of the nature of the case; and a brief description of how the Court applied the Jevic

Please note that this chart focuses only on cases where Jevic priority skipping issues are raised and adjudicated.  The intent of the Jevic Files is to focus only on cases that directly relate to priority skipping issues, not decisions that merely cite Jevic.

CASE

DESCRIPTION

APPLICATION OF JEVIC

In re Haddad, 572 B.R. 661 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017)

 

September 6, 2017

This is a chapter 13 case in which the debtor attempted to conceal a significant tort judgment from the Bankruptcy Court and moved to dismiss the case when the Court and Chapter 13 trustee learned of the undisclosed claim.  The tort claim would have paid all creditors in full and allowed the debtor to retain nearly $700,000. 

 

The trustee objected to the dismissal, and the bankruptcy court ultimately denied the dismissal under §349(b)(3)'s cause standard.

Despite Jevic placing a high bar on what constitutes cause under § 349, and the court finding that the Debtor's actions did not rise to the level of "fraud" or "bad faith," the court noted that "this is precisely the type of case referred to by Jevic in its discussion of the proper time to use § 349(b)(3)'s authority to 'order otherwise' for 'cause.'" 

 

The Court thoroughly analyzed Jevic, noting that this was not a priority-skipping case, but rather, a case where denying the dismissal would allow for the priority scheme to be followed, but allowing dismissal would "divert payments from creditors to end run the Bankruptcy Code.

In re Fryar, 570 B.R. 602 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn., 2017)

 

April 25, 2017

This is a chapter 11 case for an individual debtor who sought approval of a proposed settlement agreement that involved a series of transactions involving the debtor's ownership of certain stock and the conveyance of real property free and clear of liens.  

The Court rejected this settlement proposal, citing Jevic primarily for the standard that "a significant Code-related objective" is necessary to approve a priority-skipping settlement like the one proposed.

 

Because the settlement appeared to the court to be closer to a preamble to conversion or a structured dismissal, the court found that Jevic barred the settlement, as it skipped a priority IRS tax lien and preferred one secured creditor over others..

U.S. v. Ste-Bri Ent., Inc., 2017 WL 4226873 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2017)

 

September 22, 2017

This case analyzes the priority of chapter 7 Trustee payments versus US Trustee quarterly fees.  The bankruptcy court allowed the chapter 7 trustee to give her payments equal priority to the U.S. Trustee's fees, but junior to chapter 7 expenses.  The District Court reversed, holding that this order shifted the priority scheme outlined in the Bankruptcy Code.

 

The Court cited Jevic as a "warning against utilizing congressional silence to disturb bankruptcy priority."

 

By elevating the chapter 7 administrative expenses above the US Trustee's quarterly fees, the District Court noted, the bankruptcy court interpreted Congress' silence to signal a departure from the priorities in § 507(a).

In re Pioneer Health Svcs., Inc., 570 B.R. 228 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 2017)

 

April 4, 2017

This case involves a chapter 11 hospital debtor seeking payment of three independent-contractor doctors as "critical vendors" eight months after the petition date.  The debtor argued that these doctors have threatened to leave the hospital absent payment.  The bankruptcy court rejected the debtor's assertion that these doctors were "critical vendors," taking a narrow approach to "critical vendor" payments. 

The Court cited Jevic for the proposition that there must be a "significant offsetting bankruptcy related justification" to allow for critical vendor payments.  Absent such a justification, the Court refused to allow for payment in violation of the priority scheme.

 

Here, it appeared that no such justification existed.  Further, the debtor had potential avenues, beyond a priority-breaking "critical vendors" motion, to waylay its fears regarding the doctors' threatened departure.  Specifically, the doctors could be treated as stay-violators if they refused to continue providing services.

In re Eternal Enter., Inc., 2017 WL 1373239 (Bankr. D. Conn. Apr. 13, 2017)

 

April 13, 2017

This case involves a single asset real estate debtor attempting to sell its real property to two separate purchasers through 11 U.S.C. § 363.  The primary question before the Court was whether the debtor would obtain reasonable value for the property under the proposed § 363 sale.

 

The Court primarily cites Jevic for the Jevic court's approving citation of In re Lionel Corp, 722 F.2d 106 (2d Cir. 1983).  The Court noted "[i]n its recent decision in [Jevic], the United States Supreme Court compared the structured dismissal it disapproved with 'transactions that lower courts have refused to allow on the ground that they circumvent the Code's procedural safeguards' citing, among others, the Lionel decision." 

In re Touchstone Home Health, LLC, 572 B.R. 271 (Bankr. D. Col. 2017)

 

August 21, 2017

This case involves the intersection of the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Arbitration Act.  Although an interesting case, its citation of Jevic is minor.

The Court cites Jevic for the general principle that "[t]o be successful in Chapter 11, 'debtor and creditors try to negotiate a plan that will govern the distribution of valuable assets from the debtor's estate . . . ."  Beyond this cite, the case offers little interpretation or analysis of Jevic.

United States v. Rupari Food Servs., Inc., 254 F. Supp. 3d 1367 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2017)

 

August 10, 2017

 

This case asks the question: does the automatic stay work to stay an action for a civil penalty brought by the U.S. against the debtor for alleged fraudulent, negligent, or grossly negligent misrepresentations made in the course of importing goods into the commerce of the country.  Despite this interesting subject matter, the case offers little insight into the Jevic case.

The Court cites Jevic for the general principle that "[i]n Chapter 11, debtor and creditors try to negotiate a plan that will govern the distribution of valuable assets from the debtor's estate and often keep the business operating as a going concern."   Beyond this cite, the case offers no analysis or interpretation of Jevic.

In re Hansen, 2017 WL 1491765 (Bankr. D.N.H. Apr. 25, 2017)

 

April 25, 2017

 

This is a chapter 7 case that deals with a § 363 sale of the debtor's patent assets. Its treatment of Jevic is minimal, citing it only for general principles.  Accordingly, the case offers little from the standpoint of how Courts are applying Jevic.

The Court cites Jevic for the general principle that "the Bankruptcy Code provides for priority in payment to creditors over payment to debtors."

In re Olympia Office LLC, 574 B.R. 38 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017)

 

June 30, 2017

 

This is a Chapter 11 order regarding the debtor's objections to certain proofs of claim filed by a secured creditor.  The major inquiry is whether the debtor is a "party in interest" to object to the claims of a noteholder for a contract to which the debtor was not a party.  The Court determined that the debtor was a party in interest, able to object to the proofs of claim, even though not a party to the contract.

 

The Court cites Jevic for the general principle that "a debtor in possession is a fiduciary installed as trustee to manage the estate in the interest of the creditors." 

Beyond this citation, the Court offers no analysis or interpretation of Jevic.

In re Lyondell Chem. Co., 567 B.R. 55 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017)

 

April 21, 2017

This case deals with fraudulent transfer claims brought by the trustee of a litigation trust pursuant to claims arising from a prepetition leveraged buyout. 

The Court cites Jevic in a footnote, noting that the Supreme Court had offered a "cogent primer on the dynamics of a typical leveraged buyout."  Beyond citing Jevic for the general structure of leveraged buyouts providing therein, the case fails to otherwise analyze or interpret the case.

In re Briar Hill Foods, LLC, 2017 WL 4404274 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2017)

 

September 29, 2017

 

This case involves an attempt by chapter 11 debtors to effectively have the Court treat receivers as the functional equivalent of chapter 11 trustees. 

The Court cites Jevic for the proposition that the court "cannot concoct procedures and rules to accommodate a good result, especially when the means circumvent the bankruptcy code."  While not offering significant analysis, this cite shows that the Jevic opinion has limited the potential potency of § 105.

Virginia, Dep't of Soc. Servs. , Div. of Child Support Enf't v. Beskin, 2017 WL 4706912 (W.D. Va. Oct. 19, 2017)

 

October 19, 2017

 

This is a chapter 13 case involving whether Bankruptcy Code § 1326(a)(2) requires a chapter 13 trustee to return funds to a debtor after dismissal without a confirmed plan if a creditor has attempted to levy on the trustee.  The court concluded that the trustee should return the funds to the debtor and that the creditor collect from the debtor, and not the chapter 13 trustee, as that would have been the protocol prepetition.

 

The Court does not go into a detailed examination of Jevic, but cites it for the proposition: "Last term, the Supreme Court emphasized that dismissal of a bankruptcy case 'aims to return to the prepetition financial status quo."  Because prepetition, the creditor would have had to collect from the debtor, and because no plan was confirmed, the Court determined that the prepetition status quo was for the creditor to collect from the debtor, and not the trustee.

SHERRY LYNN BADALICH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX OF THE W. SCOTT BURKE, JR. ESTATE, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE BADALICH FAMILY TRUST, AND CARL BADALICH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE BADALICH FAMILY TRUST, APPELLANTS v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF WINNSBORO, APPELLEE, 2017 WL 5477354 (Tex. App. Nov. 15, 2017)

 

November 15, 2017

 

While this is not a bankruptcy case, per se, it arises shortly after the conclusion of an individual chapter 11 case and deals with the aftermath of a dismissal of a chapter 11 case without a confirmed plan.  In the bankruptcy case, the debtor initially filed for bankruptcy protection under chapter 13, but converted his case to a chapter 11 proceeding.  The debtor's case appears to have been filed to stop a lender-creditor from foreclosing on the debtor's property. After 18 months in bankruptcy, the debtor moved to dismiss the case, without a plan, asserting that "his lender of funds to pay his secured creditors will only provide financing to the debtor not in bankruptcy."  As soon as the case was dismissed, the lender sued to foreclose on the property, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the lender.

The Court cites Jevic for the primary purpose of describing the role of the "debtor in possession" and the three possible outcomes of a chapter 11 case: dismissal, conversion, or plan confirmation.  The Court also cites Jevic in stating: "Unless the bankruptcy court for cause orders otherwise, the dismissal of a bankruptcy proceeding without approval of a plan 'reverts the property of the estate in the entity in which such property was vested immediately before the commencement of the case under this title.'"

 

In essence, the court cites Jevic to explain that the debtor's dismissal without plan confirmation restored the debtor to the prepetition status quo.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions