United States: Supreme Court Limits Use Of Structured Dismissals Of Chapter 11 Cases

Richard Lear is a Partner and Amy Fuentes is an Associate in the Washington D.C. office

John Monaghan is a Partner in the Chicago office


  • In a 6-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners in Czyzewski, et al. v. Jevic Holding Corp, et al., reversing the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
  • The Supreme Court determined that bankruptcy courts may not approve structured dismissals of Chapter 11 cases that provide for distributions of estate funds that do not follow the ordinary priority rules established under the Bankruptcy Code without the consent of the affected creditors.
  • As grounds for its decision, the Supreme Court considered the priority of claims under Section 507 and the effects of the dismissal of a bankruptcy case under Section 349 of the Bankruptcy Code, but declined to express its view on the legality of structured dismissals in general.

In a 6-2 decision on March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that bankruptcy courts may not approve a structured dismissal of a Chapter 11 case that provided for distributions of estate funds that do not follow ordinary priority rules established under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code without the affected creditors' consent.1 In a decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner in Czyzewski, et al. v. Jevic Holding Corp., et al.2, reversing the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and remanding the case for further proceedings.3

Case History

In Jevic, the question before the Court was whether a bankruptcy court has the legal power to order a distribution of assets that gave money to high-priority secured creditors and low-priority general unsecured creditors but bypassed dissenting mid-priority unsecured creditors in connection with the dismissal of a Chapter 11 case.

In 2006, Sun Capital Partners acquired Jevic Transportation Corp. in a leveraged buyout. Two years later, Jevic filed a Chapter 11 case in Delaware. At the time of its bankruptcy filing, Jevic owed $53 million to senior secured creditors, including Sun, and more than $20 million to tax and general unsecured creditors. The petitioners, a group of former Jevic truck drivers, filed suit in the bankruptcy case against Jevic and Sun for violations of state and federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Acts – laws that require a company to give workers at least 60 days' notice before their termination of employment. Petitioners alleged that Jevic did not provide proper notice to petitioners of the termination of their employment. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment for the petitioners against Jevic, leaving them with a judgment of $12.4 million. Approximately $8 million of the judgment counted as a priority unsecured wage claim under the Bankruptcy Code and, accordingly, was entitled to payment ahead of general unsecured claims. The petitioners' WARN suit against Sun continued throughout most of the litigation that came before the Supreme Court. Eventually, Sun prevailed.

Another lawsuit relevant to the litigation before the Supreme Court resulted from the bankruptcy court authorizing a committee representing Jevic's unsecured creditors to sue Sun and the other secured creditor to avoid transfers of Jevic's assets in connection with the leveraged buyout as preferences under Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code and as fraudulent transfers under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. Any recovery from this lawsuit would inure to the benefit of the bankruptcy estate, not to the unsecured creditors. In 2011, the bankruptcy court held that the committee had adequately pleaded claims of preferential transfer and fraudulent transfer under the Bankruptcy Code.4 Following this ruling, the committee, Sun and the other secured creditor defendant and Jevic tried to negotiate a settlement. At that time, the only assets remaining in the bankruptcy estate were the preference and fraudulent conveyance claims that were the subject of the lawsuit and $1.7 million in cash, which was subject to a lien held by Sun.

The parties were successful in reaching a settlement agreement providing that: 1) the bankruptcy court would dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice; 2) Sun would assign its lien on Jevic's remaining $1.7 million to a trust, which would pay taxes and administrative expenses and distribute the remainder on a pro rata basis to the holders of the low priority claims, but which would not pay anything to the petitioners on their higher priority $8.3 million wage claims5; 3) the other secured creditor defendant would deposit $2 million into an account earmarked to pay the committee's legal fees and administrative expenses; and 4) Jevic's Chapter 11 case would be dismissed. As summarized by the Supreme Court, "the proposed settlement called for a structured dismissal that provided for distributions that did not follow ordinary priority rules."

Although the bankruptcy court agreed with petitioners that the settlement's proposed distribution to creditors did not follow the payment priority rules contained in the Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy court concluded that the failure did not bar approval of the settlement for two reasons: 1) the proposed payouts would occur pursuant to a structured dismissal of the bankruptcy case and not under a confirmed plan; and 2) without the settlement and dismissal, there would be "no realistic prospect" of a meaningful payment for anyone other than the secured creditors, constituting "dire circumstances" for the estate and its creditors. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed the bankruptcy court, agreeing that the priority rules were not a bar to approval because the settlement was not a Chapter 11 plan.6 The Third Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that structured dismissals need not always respect the distribution priority scheme under the Bankruptcy Code in "rare instances," such as the case at hand.7

Supreme Court Reverses Third Circuit Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit ruling, stating that the Bankruptcy Code's priority system "constitutes a basic underpinning of business bankruptcy law" and that there was no indication that "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."

In its decision, the Supreme Court observed that Section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code gave a bankruptcy court the power to dismiss a Chapter 11 case, but that neither "structured" nor "conditions" nor any other words about distributing estate assets or paying estate funds to creditors pursuant to a dismissal of the Chapter 11 case appeared in that section or in any relevant part of the Bankruptcy Code. Instead, the Supreme Court noted that Section 349(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provided that dismissal of a bankruptcy case restored the pre-petition financial status quo by, among other things, reinstating avoided transfers of estate property and revesting property of the bankruptcy estate in the entity in which such property was vested before the filing of the bankruptcy case. Acknowledging that Section 349(b) said that a bankruptcy court may, "for cause, orde[r] otherwise", the Supreme Court looked to the legislative history of that section and concluded that the provision appeared designed to give courts the flexibility to protect rights acquired by a party during the course of the bankruptcy case, a situation that did not exist in the Jevic case.

Finding no support in the Bankruptcy Code, other than possibly Section 349(b), for end-of-case distributions of estate assets to creditors of the kind that occur in Chapter 7 liquidations or under confirmed Chapter 11 plans as part of a dismissal of a bankruptcy case, the Supreme Court rejected the Third Circuit's approval of nonconsensual priority-violating structured dismissals even in "rare case[s]" in which courts could find "sufficient reasons" to disregard priority. Because of its view that it is difficult to adequately define "sufficient reasons," the Court concluded that a "rare case" exception could become a general rule resulting in potentially serious consequences in bankruptcy cases, including eliminating Congressional protections granted to particular classes of creditors, impacting the bargaining power of classes of creditors even in bankruptcy cases that do not result in structured dismissals, and promoting collusion between secured creditors and low-priority general unsecured creditors to freeze out priority unsecured creditors from receiving any distribution of estate assets.


The Supreme Court noted in its decision that there was no express support in the Bankruptcy Code for structured dismissals and that structured dismissals appear to be used with increasing frequency. Yet, despite the juxtaposition of these circumstances, the Court parenthetically stated that it was not considering the far more interesting issue: the legality of structured dismissals in general. Instead, the Court determined that structured dismissals cannot be used to make a final distribution of estate funds in a manner that deviates from the priorities set forth in Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code without the consent of the affected creditors.8 Consequently, the Jevic decision raised more questions than it answered. For example, would a structured dismissal that followed the priorities of Section 507 be permissible? Second, would the "gifting" by a secured creditor of funds that are proceeds of its collateral to be used to pay a low-priority creditor class, skipping a high-priority creditor class, in a structured dismissal be allowed? The funds at issue in Jevic were the proceeds of the settlement of fraudulent conveyance and preference litigation against the secured creditors, and were not proceeds of the secured creditors' collateral. Some courts have held that a secured creditor is free to allocate the proceeds of its collateral as it wishes. Perhaps those decisions are left unscathed, but perhaps they are not.9

The Court also made clear that it was not prohibiting all of what it termed as "priority-violating distributions." Actually, the Court seemed to approve of priority-violating distributions if they are made early in the case such that they do not constitute a final distribution of estate assets if those distributions serve to "preserve the debtor as a going concern", "make disfavored creditors better off" or "promote the possibility of a confirmable plan." Examples of such priority-violating distributions mentioned (and implicitly approved) by the Court include the non-controversial payment of employee pre-petition wages under a "first-day" order, and the far more controversial (and implicitly approved) priority-skipping distributions to "critical vendors" and roll-ups of pre-petition secured debt into post-petition financing by the secured creditor.


1 Structured dismissals are defined by the American Bankruptcy Institute as a "hybrid dismissal and confirmation order...that...typically dismisses the case while, among other things, approving certain distributions to creditors, granting certain third-party releases, enjoining certain conduct by creditors, and not necessarily vacating orders or unwinding transactions undertaken during the case." American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11, 2012-2014 Final Report and Recommendations 270 (2014).    

2 Czyzewski, et al. v. Jevic Holding Corp, et al. (Slip Op., No. 15-649 March 22, 2017).

3 Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

4 In re Jevic Holding Corp., 2011 WL 4345204 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 15, 2011).

5 Apparently, Sun required that the distribution skip the petitioners' claims because the petitioners' WARN suit against Sun was still pending and Sun did not want to help finance the litigation against itself.

6 In re Jevic Holding Corp., 2014 WL 268613, *3 (D. Del. Jan. 24, 2014).

7 In re Jevic Holding Corp., 787 F.3d 173, 175, 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2017).

8 There is some question as to whether the Jevic decision addressed any existing split among the circuits as a result of petitioners recasting the question presented to the Court after the Court granted certiorari. Czyzewski, et al. v. Jevic Holding Corp, et al. (Slip Op., No. 15-649 March 22, 2017) (Thomas, J. dissenting opinion) ("[The recast question] is also not the subject of a circuit conflict").

9 The Court majority expressed concern with an approach to structured dismissals that promoted risks of collusion between senior secured creditors and representatives of general unsecured creditors "teaming up to squeeze out priority unsecured creditors." Jevic, Slip Op., at *17-18.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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.


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.


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