The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. – holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize the release of third-party claims against non-debtors in a reorganization plan without the consent of the affected claimants – will have a lasting impact on mass tort bankruptcy cases and likely nullifies one of the primary benefits of the so-called “Texas Two-Step” strategy: obtaining third-party releases of the debtor entity’s non-debtor affiliates.

In a recent decision, the Second Circuit held that only parties with the right to pursue a breach of contract claim under an executory contract or unexpired lease have the right to demand a cure payment in the event the executory contract or lease is assumed by a debtor in bankruptcy, affirming previous decisions by the bankruptcy and district courts, and limiting the scope of Bankruptcy Code § 365(b)(1)(A).

The High Court has allowed an application for an order to enable access to a bankrupt’s pension to satisfy debts arising from fraud. Prior to the bankruptcy, judgment was obtained against him for £3.2m plus costs.

Pension Protection Fund: valuation assumptions

The PPF has consulted on changing the assumptions used for section 143 valuations (used for schemes  in assessment periods) and section 179 valuations (used when setting a scheme's risk-based levy).   The PPF expects that the proposed changes would increase section 143 and section 179 liabilities by  just under 4% and would potentially lead to a small increase in the number of schemes transferring  to the PPF.

Pension Protection Fund: insolvency risk provider