We have blogged previously about the intersection of fraud and bankruptcy.

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.

Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction, and its legal system is based on English law. Following Hong Kong’s handover to China on 1 July 1997, the Basic Law of Hong Kong is the constitutional document of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Article 8 of the Basic Law provides that: “laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is, the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law shall be maintained, except for any that contravene [the Basic Law], and subject to any amendment by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

In a decision delivered on 7 June 2024 (2024TALCH02/00950) (the Decision), the Luxembourg District Court provided for substantive clarifications regarding article 10 of the Luxembourg Law of 7 August 2023 on the continuation of businesses and modernisation of insolvency law (the Restructuring Law). This article empowers the Court to appoint judicial agents (mandataires de justice) in case of serious and aggravated misconduct (manquements graves et caractérisés) by the debtor or its corporate bodies, threatening the continuity of the business.

The Privy Council has recently delivered a landmark judgment on the interplay between arbitration agreements and winding up petitions. The Board held that the English case of Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1575; Ch 589, which had adopted a pro-arbitration approach to stay or dismiss winding up petitions based on debts covered by arbitration agreements, even if the debts were not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds was wrongly decided.

Op 27 mei 2024 is het Wetsvoorstel overgang van onderneming in faillissement in internetconsultatie gegaan (de WOVOF). De WOVOF beoogt de werknemersbescherming bij faillissement te vergroten, met name in geval van een doorstart. De WOVOF introduceert onder andere een verplichting voor de doorstarter om (in beginsel) alle werknemers uit de failliete onderneming over te nemen. Deze en andere maatregelen worden in dit nieuwsbericht nader toegelicht. 

Huidige regeling en aanleiding WOVOF

On 27 May 2024, the draft bill on transfer of undertaking in bankruptcy (in Dutch: Wetsvoorstel overgang van onderneming in faillissement, the WOVOF) was made available for internet consultation. The WOVOF aims to increase the protection of employees in case of bankruptcy, and more particular, in case of a restart (in Dutch: doorstart). The WOVOF introduces, amongst other things, an obligation for the acquirer in a restart to (in principle) offer employment to all employees from the bankrupt company. This and other measures will be discussed in detail in this this news blog. 

This article originally appeared in The Bankruptcy Strategist.

To file bankruptcy in the U.S., a debtor must reside in, have a domicile or a place of business in, or have property in the United States. 11 U.S.C. §109(a). In cross border Chapter 15 cases, courts have considered if a foreign debtor must satisfy that jurisdictional test.

At a hearing in mid-March, the Delaware bankruptcy court held Camshaft Capital Fund, LP, Camshaft Capital Advisors, LLC, Camshaft Capital Management (collectively, “Camshaft”) and William Cameron Morton, principal of Camshaft, in civil contempt. The case is noteworthy because the court not only imposed monetary sanctions but also ordered civil confinement to compel Camshaft and Morton to comply with the court’s prior discovery order. The court issued a supplementary opinion on April 3, 2024, after Camshaft appealed.

The Belgian Constitutional Court addressed in a recent judgment the treatment of creditors in a collective debt settlement procedure. The central question was whether a different treatment of creditors, depending on whether they benefit from security over financial collateral, can be justified by objective criteria and whether this aligns with the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Since the court finds the different treatment unconstitutional, the judgment impacts the enforcement rights of pledgees of financial collateral granted by private individuals.