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
Les cas d’insolvabilité commerciale devraient continuer d’augmenter à court terme en raison de la hausse des taux d’intérêt, des perturbations dans les chaînes d’approvisionnement et de l’augmentation conséquente du coût des marchandises. Une flambée des cas d’insolvabilité commerciale pourrait également augmenter la probabilité que les entreprises soient touchées par une procédure d’insolvabilité officielle en tant que créancier, fournisseur ou client, ou autrement en tant que partie prenante.
Introduction
Commercial insolvencies are expected to steadily increase in the near-term due to higher interest rates, supply chain disruption and corresponding increased commodity costs. A rise in commercial insolvencies will increase the likelihood that businesses will be impacted by a formal insolvency proceeding, whether as a creditor, supplier, customer or other stakeholder. It is, therefore, important for businesses to understand how to strategize in the context of both newly initiated and ongoing insolvency proceedings.
Commercial insolvencies are expected to steadily increase in the near-term due to higher interest rates, supply chain disruption and corresponding increased commodity costs. A rise in commercial insolvencies will increase the likelihood that businesses will be impacted by a formal insolvency proceeding, whether as a creditor, supplier, customer or other stakeholder. It is, therefore, important for businesses to understand how to strategize in the context of both newly initiated and ongoing insolvency proceedings.
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
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?