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.

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.

In Hunt v Singh, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in BTI v Sequana (see our alert) in deciding when the directors' duty to creditors arose.

Background

Marylebone Warwick Balfour Management Limited (the Company), entered a tax avoidance scheme between 2002 and 2010 which the directors, on professional advice, believed to be valid.

On 5 July 2023 the Court sanctioned Prezzo Investco Ltd's (Prezzo) restructuring plan despite strong opposition by UK tax authority, HMRC.

HMRC has taken a more active approach to opposing restructuring plans and was successful in blocking the plans recently proposed by GAS and Nasmyth (see our alert).

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.

The English Court of Appeal has widened the scope of transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in a recent case, Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini and others (Invest Bank).

Under s.423, the court will only make an order if it is satisfied that a transaction at an undervalue was entered into by a debtor for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of a person who may make a claim against them or otherwise prejudicing their interests in relation to such claim.

The English tax authority, HMRC, has successfully challenged the restructuring plans put forward by The Great Annual Savings Company Limited (GAS) and Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth).

This is the first time that HMRC has actively challenged restructuring plans at the sanction hearing. The key takeaways from the judgments:

Nasmyth

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