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.
债务重组作为困境企业的有效救济路径，本质是债权人与债务人通过制定债务重组方案的方式，就债权债务重新做出安排。而在实践中，债务重组方案的执行情况往往是由方案本身的可行性、方案执行过程中的管理与实时协调、方案实施的弹性空间等多个方面决定的。本文将从这几个方面作简要分析，提出一定思考与借鉴。
一、关于债务重组
现阶段，国内尚未建立起完整的调整企业债务重组行为的法律规范，对于“债务重组”的释义，主要出现在会计及税务层面。根据《企业会计准则第12号——债务重组》的相关规定，债务重组是指在不改变交易对手方的情况下，经债权人和债务人协定或法院裁定，就清偿债务的时间、金额或方式等重新达成协议的交易。而根据《关于企业重组业务企业所得税处理若干问题的通知》（财税〔2009年〕59号）规定，债务重组是在债务人发生财务困难的情况下，债权人按照其与债务人达成的书面协议或者法院裁定书，就其对债务人的债务做出让步，通过重组以优化企业资产质量，从而实现资产价值的提升并获得收益的行为。
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.
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.
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.
In an opinion that mostly flew under the radar in 2021, Judge Christopher Sontchi from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) found investment firm Yucaipa American Alliance Fund I, L.P. and Yucaipa American Alliance (Parallel) Fund I, L.P.