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.

On May 31, 2024, the chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) entered General Order M-634, adopting guidelines for combining the processes for Chapter 11 plan confirmation under Section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code and disclosure statement approval under Section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On January 22, 2024, the chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered General Order M-621 adopting amended procedural guidelines governing prepackaged Chapter 11 cases.

The guidelines provide a comprehensive framework for the administration of prepackaged Chapter 11 cases in the district. Among other things, they recognize and address “Rapid Prepackaged Chapter 11 Case[s],” defined as cases “where the Debtor seeks confirmation of the plan to be granted between one (1) and fourteen (14) days after the petition date.”

Key Points

In the matter of Bleecker Property Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2023] NSWSC 1071, appears to be the first published case that considers the question of whether an order can be made under section 588FF(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by way of default judgment against one defendant where there are multiple defendants in the proceedings.

Key takeaways

Key Points

Introduction

This week’s TGIF considers Hundy (liquidator), in the matter of 3 Property Group 13 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] FCA 1216, in which the Federal Court of Australia granted leave under rule 2.13(1) of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) (FCCR) for intervening parties to be h

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.