In a groundbreaking ruling, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia recently delivered a decision that is poised to significantly influence insolvency proceedings. The case, cited as British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246, marks the first time an appellate court has addressed the jurisdiction and appropriateness of reverse vesting orders (RVOs) in receivership contexts. This ruling provides crucial insights into the court's reasoning and its implications for legal and non-legal professionals alike.
Background and core issue
A public and competitive process
2023 closed with a significant rise in the number of insolvencies in France. With a total of 56,200 insolvency proceedings (redressement judiciaire and liquidation judiciaire), mainly in the retail sector, the opportunities for taking over a business at the bar of a court are multiplying.
However, these takeovers are governed by a strict timetable and formalities, requiring a thorough understanding of the workings of insolvency law.
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.
The FCA has now published proposed amendments to its (the IP guidance). Our previous article highlighted the significance of the Consumer Duty in the financial services industry and how firms will need to view customer outcomes and proactively address harm in the retail market.
Introduction
The proud sporting nations of Ireland and England have for some time traded blows and bragging rights within the Six Nations Tournament as the two pre-eminent and consistent "Home Nations" rugby teams. While the two sides share some similarities in the rebuilding process following the World Cup in France 2023, ahead of this Saturday's clash, few can argue with Ireland's emphatic start to this year's tournament. England, however, can never be written off at Twickenham, so a potential blockbuster awaits!
The Calcutta Cup represents a long and competitive rugby rivalry between the great neighbours that are Scotland and England. Last year, Scotland retained the trophy in a hard-fought match at Twickenham with victory being sealed in the last minute with a try from Duhan van der Merwe who, being 6ft 4 inches, blond and in the peak of physical health, is a fair representation of your average Scotsman.
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 Consumer Duty is one of the most significant pieces of regulation to land in the financial services industry for some time and represents a major shift in how firms will need to view customer outcomes and proactively address harm in the retail market. For Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) appointed over a regulated firm that has products within the scope of the duty, this will form part of the regulatory obligations with which the firm (and the IP) will need to ensure compliance.
The recently reported decision of ICC Judge Greenwood in Grove Independent School Ltd, Re [2023] EWHC 2546 (Ch) (Grove) provides some clarity on the test to be applied by the court in deciding whether to exercise discretion to grant an order for a Part A1 moratorium. In this case, the company in question was also faced with a winding-up petition, presented by His Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC).