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.
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.
For industry professionals in India, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, has been a game-changer. The introduction of a formal framework for insolvency resolution has brought much-needed clarity and efficiency to dealing with financial distress. However, the 2019 Regulations introduced a new dimension - the ability for personal guarantors (PGs) to initiate insolvency proceedings. This has significantly impacted the role of Resolution Professionals (RPs).
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.
In the concluding part of our exploration into the 2023 insolvency landscape, Part 5 delves into two significant cases that shape the dynamics of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), offering insights into constitutional challenges and the treatment of properties acquired through auction sales.
Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India
Constitutional Validity of Sections 95 to 100 in Part III of IBC
Background: