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.
Bankruptcy Basics for New and Non-Bankruptcy Attorneys
This entry is part of Nelson Mullins’s ongoing “Bankruptcy Basics” blog series that is intended to address foundational aspects of bankruptcy for new and non-bankruptcy practitioners and professionals. This entry will discuss the general structure of bankruptcy claims and the differences between how unsecured, secured, and priority claims are treated in a bankruptcy case.
A “claim” against a bankruptcy estate is defined as a:
This entry is part of Nelson Mullins’s ongoing “Bankruptcy Basics” blog series that is intended to address foundational aspects of bankruptcy for new and non-bankruptcy practitioners and professionals. This entry will discuss the general structure of bankruptcy cases and the differences between “adversary proceedings” and “contested matters.”
Introduction
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered its (second) opinion in the case of In re Ultra Petroleum Corporation, Case No. 21-20008, on October 14, 2022, potentially widening a circuit split on the issue of “make-whole” payments. With the circuit split potentially growing, this issue could be ripe for a grant of certiorari.
The Bankruptcy Protector
Bankruptcy Basics for New and Non-Bankruptcy Attorneys
This entry is part of Nelson Mullins’s ongoing “Bankruptcy Basics” blog series that is intended to address foundational aspects of bankruptcy for non-bankruptcy practitioners and professionals. This entry will discuss sales of assets “free and clear” under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.
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?
The Bankruptcy Protector
Bankruptcy Basics for New and Non-Bankruptcy Attorneys
This entry is part of Nelson Mullins’s ongoing “Bankruptcy Basics” blog series that is intended to address foundational aspects of bankruptcy for non-bankruptcy practitioners and professionals. This entry will discuss how ipso facto clauses are treated in bankruptcy.
Imagine you are the vendor to an entity that has just filed for protection under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Your contract documents include the following default provision:
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.