Asset freeze measures enacted by the United Kingdom against designated persons (DPs) can, under certain circumstances, extend to entities “owned or controlled” by DPs. To date, there have been few—and at times partly contradictory—English court cases addressing the “ownership and control” criteria under the UK sanctions regime. The latest judgment in Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank sought to reconcile the previous guidance provided by the courts in the Mints and Litasco cases.
On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a 5-4 decision rejecting the nonconsensual releases of the Sackler family in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case. The split is an interesting alignment of Justices: Gorsuch writing the majority opinion, joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson; Kavanaugh for the dissent, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan.
The US Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision on June 27, 2024 that nonconsensual third-party releases, as proposed in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan, were not permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. A nonconsensual third-party release serves to eliminate the direct claims of third parties against nondebtor parties without soliciting the consent of such affected claimants. This contrasts with consensual releases and opt-in or opt-out mechanisms permitted by courts.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy has long been thought of as anathema to commercial real estate (CRE) lenders. This is due to the debtor-friendly bankruptcy forum, particularly with respect to (i) the up to 18 month exclusivity period during which only the debtor could propose a plan of reorganization and (ii) threats of a "cram-down" plan used to lever concessions from lenders. These provisions can be, and often were, abused by debtors with no real rehabilitative intent using bankruptcy only as a leverage tool.
Matthew Czyzyk, Natalie Blanc, Natalie Raine and Emily Ma, Ropes & Gray
This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
Mark Fine, Usman Khan and Sunay Radia, McDermott Will & Emery
This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
Amar Meher, Addleshaw Goddard LLP
This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight
Alexandros Kontogeorgiou and Georgia Papathanasiou, Kontogeorgiou Bakopanou & Associates Law Firm
This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
Alexander Vogel and Marc Baumberger, MLL Legal
This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
One of the primary goals of bankruptcy law is to provide debtors with a fresh start by imposing an automatic stay and allowing for claims of reorganizing debtors to be discharged. In environmental law, a primary goal is to ensure that the “polluter pays” for environmental harms. These two goals collide when an entity with environmental liabilities enters bankruptcy. The result is often outcomes that are the exception, rather than the rule, with many unsettled areas of law that can be dealt with by bankruptcy courts in varying ways.