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.

Introduction

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.

In a decision approved for publication, addressing the intersection of New Jersey Court Rule 4:5-4 and 11 U.S.C. 524(a), the New Jersey Appellate Division recently held that a bankruptcy discharge precluded a creditor from obtaining a judgment of personal liability and debtor’s failure to plead that defense did not waive it. Vadim Chepovetsky and Svetlana Nashtatik v. Louis Civello, Jr. , No. A-0476-21 (App. Div. Jun. 16, 2022).

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.

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York recently upheld the findings of a Bankruptcy Court, which held that the in rem tax foreclosure of the subject property was a fraudulent conveyance. SeeDuvall v. Cty. of Ont., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216970 (W.D.N.Y. 2021). The matter arose from the tax foreclosure of property (the “Property”) for the non-payment of taxes arising in 2015. In October 2016, the County issued a foreclosure petition and notices, advising that interested parties had the right to redeem the Property on or before January 13, 2017.

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.

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.