In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

El Tribunal Supremo recuerda que la prohibición de las sentencias condenatorias con reserva de liquidación debe interpretarse de manera flexible, atendiendo a los motivos justificados y razonables de cada caso en particular

Damos noticia de la sentencia del Tribunal Supremo núm. 1228/2023, de 14 de septiembre, que analiza una cuestión de enorme interés práctico, como son las sentencias de condena con reserva de liquidación.

Evolución de la normativa

The ruling emphasises the need to flexibly interpret the prohibition in light of the reasonable grounds of each case

The Supreme Court's decision on the interpretation of the ban on sentences with a reservation of liquidation – numbered 1228/2023 and dated 14 September – has significant practical importance.

Regulatory developments

The regulation of sentences with a reservation of liquidation has significantly changed over the years.

Introduction

Commercial court powers have been amended to achieve the speed and efficiency required by EU regulations.

What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?

A foreign (non-U.S.) company can be dragged unwillingly into a U.S. bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court has “personal jurisdiction” over the company.

A foreign (non-U.S.) company can be dragged unwillingly into a U.S. bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court has “personal jurisdiction” over the company.

The issue of whether directors, officers, and/or shareholders breached their fiduciary duties to a company prior to bankruptcy is commonly litigated in chapter 11 cases, as creditors look to additional sources for recovery, such as D&O insurance or “deep-pocket” shareholders, including private equity firms. The recent decision in In re AMC Investors, LLC, 637 B.R. 43 (Bankr. D. Del. 2022) provides a helpful reminder of the importance of timing in bringing such claims and the use by defendants of affirmative defenses to defeat those claims.

There is a common misconception that lender liability is a thing of the past. However, a recent decision provides a warning to lenders that they can be held liable and face substantial damages if they exercise excessive control over a debtor’s business affairs.