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).

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2071 (2024) (“Purdue”), the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize nonconsensual releases of nondebtors as part of a chapter 11 plan. The Court narrowly read the Code’s language, providing that a plan may “include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title,” 11 U.S.C.

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:

We have previouslyblogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548.

We have previously blogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548. Section 546(e), however, bars avoiding certain transfers, including a “settlement payment . . . made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . . a financial institution [or] a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution . . . in connection with a securities contract.” 11 U.S.C. § 546(e).

Federal law assigns to U.S. district courts original jurisdiction over all cases under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) and all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or relating to Title 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), (b). Federal law permits each U.S. district court to refer such cases and civil proceedings to bankruptcy courts, and district courts generally do so. But bankruptcy courts, unlike district courts, are not courts under Article III of the Constitution, and are therefore constrained in what powers they may constitutionally exercise.

Section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code enables a trustee to step into the shoes of a creditor and avoid a transfer “of an interest of the debtor in property” that an unsecured creditor could avoid under applicable state law. See 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1). Thus, for example, if outside of bankruptcy a creditor could avoid a transaction entered by a debtor as a fraudulent transfer, in bankruptcy, the trustee acquires the power to avoid such a transaction.

We have blogged a fewtimes about the Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald and its implications.

We have previously blogged about Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of the fraud exception to the dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . .

Since the Dutch Act on Court Confirmation of a Private Restructuring Plan (“WHOA” or “Dutch Scheme”) entered into force on 1 January 2021, Dutch Courts have rendered over 200 judgments.

On 9 March 2023, (one of) the largest Dutch Schemes so far was successfully completed: the restructuring of Royal IHC and its subsidiaries (as announced in IHC’s press release). In this case, the Rotterdam Court made several important decisions enhancing the effectiveness and legal certainty surrounding the WHOA, including regarding: