{"title":"Enhancing Rescue in Chapter 11: Lessons from Reform Efforts in the United Kingdom","authors":"Robert J. Landry III","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>This is a dynamic time for insolvency law. Many jurisdictions have made or are considering reforms to their insolvency regimes. The United Kingdom has proposed a new standalone restructuring mechanism that incorporates many attributes of Chapter 11, including a cross-class cram down and the absolute priority rule. A distinctive feature of the UK proposal is the infusion of judicial discretion permitting courts to deviate from the absolute priority rule. This discretion is not permitted in the United States. This judicial discretion addresses a key problem with the application of the absolute priority rule in the United States</i>—<i>it may serve as an impediment to reorganization. This impediment is exacerbated by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision,</i> Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., <i>which impacts the effective use of Chapter 11 rescue tools. This article explores the absolute priority rule, the problems associated with it, and the effect of</i> Jevic <i>in the United States. Drawing on the UK reform proposal, I argue that the United States should implement reforms that infuse judicial discretion into the application of the absolute priority rule. Doing so will facilitate the underlying policy goal of rescuing the company in Chapter 11 and also promote a broader policy goal of rescuing the business.</i></p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"57 2","pages":"227-279"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ablj.12158","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12158","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This is a dynamic time for insolvency law. Many jurisdictions have made or are considering reforms to their insolvency regimes. The United Kingdom has proposed a new standalone restructuring mechanism that incorporates many attributes of Chapter 11, including a cross-class cram down and the absolute priority rule. A distinctive feature of the UK proposal is the infusion of judicial discretion permitting courts to deviate from the absolute priority rule. This discretion is not permitted in the United States. This judicial discretion addresses a key problem with the application of the absolute priority rule in the United States—it may serve as an impediment to reorganization. This impediment is exacerbated by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., which impacts the effective use of Chapter 11 rescue tools. This article explores the absolute priority rule, the problems associated with it, and the effect of Jevic in the United States. Drawing on the UK reform proposal, I argue that the United States should implement reforms that infuse judicial discretion into the application of the absolute priority rule. Doing so will facilitate the underlying policy goal of rescuing the company in Chapter 11 and also promote a broader policy goal of rescuing the business.
这是破产法的一个动态时期。许多司法管辖区已经或正在考虑对其破产制度进行改革。英国提出了一种新的独立重组机制,该机制融合了破产法第11章的许多属性,包括跨类强制收购和绝对优先规则。英国提案的一个显著特点是引入司法自由裁量权,允许法院偏离绝对优先原则。这种自由裁量权在美国是不允许的。这种司法自由裁量权解决了绝对优先权规则在美国适用中的一个关键问题——它可能成为重组的障碍。最近美国最高法院对Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp的裁决加剧了这一障碍,该裁决影响了第11章救助工具的有效使用。本文探讨了绝对优先原则、与之相关的问题以及犹太人在美国的影响。借鉴英国的改革建议,我认为美国应该实施改革,将司法自由裁量权注入到绝对优先规则的适用中。这样做将有助于实现《破产法》第11章中拯救公司的基本政策目标,并促进拯救企业的更广泛政策目标。
期刊介绍:
The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.