In our earlier blog, "EU insolvency law: Member States move closer to harmonisation", we examined how proposals to harmonise insolvency law across the European Union are gathering pace with a draft Directive to harmonise certain aspects of insolvency law being negotiated. And the pace is, indeed, continuing.
On 12 June 2025, the Council of the EU announced that member states have agreed on a general approach to a directive aimed at bringing national insolvency standards closer together. This draft directive is designed to make the EU more attractive to foreign and cross-border investors by reducing the legal uncertainties and complexities associated with differing national insolvency laws.
Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
On 25 October 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in a ground-breaking judgment in Royal IHC that a WHOA plan may change creditors’ and shareholders’ rights but cannot impose more onerous obligations. More specifically, the lenders cannot be compelled to provide new financing or to accept new terms and still provide new funds under previously committed credit facilities (i.e., undrawn commitments).
The Singapore International Commercial Court (the "SICC"), a division of the General Division of the High Court and part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, was established in 2015 as a trusted neutral forum to meet increasing demand for effective transnational dispute resolution. It recently considered, as a matter of first impression for the SICC, whether to approve a prepackaged scheme of arrangement for a group of Vietnam-based real estate investment companies under Singapore's recently enacted Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the "IRDA").
As the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code approaches its 20-year anniversary, U.S. bankruptcy courts are still grappling with some unresolved issues concerning how its provisions should be applied to best harmonize cross-border bankruptcy cases. One of those issues was the subject of a bench ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down three bankruptcy rulings to finish the Term ended in July 2024. The decisions address the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans, the standing of insurance companies to object to "insurance neutral" chapter 11 plans, and the remedy for overpayment of administrative fees in chapter 11 cases to the Office of the U.S. Trustee. We discuss each of them below.
U.S. Supreme Court Bars Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases in Chapter 11 Plans
Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.
In the most significant decision of the decade on a matter of U.S. bankruptcy law, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its highly anticipated decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. ____ (2024) on June 27, 2024, striking down the non-consensual third party releases that were the cornerstone of Purdue Pharma's Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization by a vote of 5-4. In doing so, the Court said:
The Bankruptcy Code bars certain individuals or entities from filing for bankruptcy protection, generally because they do not reside or have a place of business or property in the United States, fail to satisfy certain debt thresholds, or are business entities, such as banks and insurance companies, subject to non-bankruptcy rules or regulations governing their rehabilitation or liquidation.