The UK retail and hospitality sectors are entering the crucial winter trading period under renewed pressure following the Chancellor’s November Budget. Economic growth remains weak, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded its annual economic forecasts through to 2030, signalling that the operating environment for consumer-facing businesses is likely to remain difficult for some time. Meanwhile, insolvency levels continue their upward trajectory: 2,029 company insolvencies were recorded in October 2025, a 17% increase compared with the same month last year.

The insolvency of a premises licence holder has an immediate impact from a licensing perspective. Most premises licences are granted in perpetuity. They can be surrendered by the holder, temporarily lapse if annual fees are not paid, or be revoked following a review. These are actions the licence holder either proactively instigates or is given notice of. However, a licence lapsing because of insolvency is different because the premises licence holder may be unaware that a licence has lapsed and it may be too late to rectify matters when the lapse is brought to their attention.

In the high-stake world of business, deals are often framed as life-or-death decisions. The pressure to close can feel insurmountable, particularly when the stakes are high, and the future of your company hangs in the balance. However, there is no deal you absolutely have to do. No matter how tempting or necessary a deal might appear, the power to walk away is one of the most valuable assets you can wield.

On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, addressing the question of whether a company can use bankruptcy to resolve the liability of non-debtor third parties. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and an injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge the claims against a nondebtor without the consent of the affected claimants.

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. ____ (2024) holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow for the inclusion of non-consensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans. This decision settles a long-standing circuit split on the propriety of such releases and clarifies that a plan may not provide for the release of claims against non-debtors without the consent of the claimants.

In its recent German Pellets decision, the Fifth Circuit held that a creditor could not assert its indemnification defenses in a suit brought by the trustee of a liquidation trust because the Chapter 11 plan’s express language permanently enjoined the defenses and the creditor chose not to participate in the debtor’s bankruptcy despite having actual knowledge of it.

The United States Supreme Court recently accepted review of In re Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 60 F.4th 73 (4th Cir.

THE BRIEF

FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION QUARTERLY

FALL 2023

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Were There Underwriting Requirements for PPP Loans After All? The Sound-Value Requirement May Pose Risk for PPP Lenders

3

Noteworthy10

District Court Upholds New ERISA Rules on ESG Investing

10

Fourth Circuit Holds That Class-Action Waivers Must Be Addressed Before Class Certification

12

Ninth Circuit: Fees for Claims-Made Settlements Must Be Based on Actual Recovery

13

Directors and officers should take note of a recent decision from the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concerning access to D&O insurance policy proceeds. In In re SVB Financial Group, Case No. 23-10367 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

In a highly anticipated decision issued on May 30, 2023, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its opinion in Purdue Pharma LP v. City of Grand Prairie (In re Purdue Pharma LP)¹ approving a Chapter 11 plan’s inclusion of a nonconsensual release of creditors’ direct claims against non-debtor third parties.

This client alert describes the history of the case, identifies some of the key takeaways from the decision and outlines where other jurisdictions in the country stand on nonconsensual third-party releases.