Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 22, 2017 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- March 22, 2017
- Docket
- No. 15-649
- Argued
- December 7, 2016
- Term
- October Term 2016
- Vote
- 6–2
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer (wrote), Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan
- Dissenting
- Justice Thomas (wrote), Justice Alito
Oral argument transcript and advocates
Opinion excerpt
Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. Bankruptcy Code Chapter 11 allows debtors and their creditors to negotiate a plan for dividing an estate’s value. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 1128, 1129, 1141. But sometimes the parties cannot agree on a plan. If so, the bankruptcy court may decide to dismiss the case. § 1112(b). The Code then ordinarily provides for what is, in effect, a restoration of the prepetition financial status quo. § 349(b), In the case before us, a Bankruptcy Court dismissed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. But the-court did not simply restore the prepetition status quo. Instead, the court ordered a distribution of estate assets that gave money to high-priority secured creditors and to low-priority general unsecured creditors but which skipped certain dissenting mid-priority creditors. The skipped creditors would have been entitled to payment ahead of the general unsecured creditors in a Chapter 11 plan (or in a Chapter 7 liquidation). See §§ 507, 725, 726, 1129. The question before us is whether a bankruptcy court has the legal power to order this priority-skipping kind of distribution scheme in connection with a Chapter 11 dismissal. In our view, a bankruptcy court does not have such a power. A distribution scheme ordered in connection with the dismissal of a Chapter 11 case cannot, without the consent of the affected parties, deviate from the basic priority rules…
Excerpt of a 34,173-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.