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.

Recently, insolvency law was fundamentally amended in terms of reorganization procedures. The tax legislation was subsequently adapted to these new procedures, at the same time changing the content of some important tax rules.

The most important change is that a waiver of debt within the framework of a reorganization agreement becomes less interesting from a tax point of view. You will find out exactly how this works in this article.

Het insolventierecht onderging recent een grote wijziging op het gebied van de reorganisatieprocedures. De fiscale wetgeving werd vervolgens aan deze nieuwe procedures aangepast en daarbij werden tegelijk ook de inhoud van een aantal belangrijke fiscale regels gewijzigd.

De belangrijkste wijziging heeft als gevolg dat een schuldkwijtschelding binnen het kader van een reorganisatieakkoord fiscaal minder interessant wordt. Hoe dat precies zit, verneemt u in dit artikel.

Le droit de l'insolvabilité a récemment fait l'objet d'un changement majeur en ce qui concerne les procédures de réorganisation. La législation fiscale a ensuite été adaptée à ces nouvelles procédures, tout en modifiant le contenu de certaines règles fiscales importantes.

Le changement le plus important a pour conséquence qu'un apurement des dettes dans le cadre d'un accord de réorganisation devient moins intéressant du point de vue fiscal. Dans cet article, vous découvrirez comment cela fonctionne exactement.

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.