Liquidator remuneration in insolvency proceedings often raises difficult questions; especially in large corporate collapses where the work is extensive and the stakes are high. Courts must balance fair compensation with creditor protection, but approaches to fee assessment have varied across jurisdictions, leading to uncertainty and dispute.
When a company goes into liquidation, creditors often wonder whether they will recover their debts. One available option to achieve this is funding legal action to help the liquidator recover assets.
Singapore's insolvency legislation allows creditors who fund liquidators' recovery actions to have priority over other creditors in the distribution of recovered assets. This improves the viability of commencing insolvency proceedings as an asset recovery tool.
When a company enters liquidation, the appointed liquidator steps into a pivotal role – one that requires navigating complex challenges to recover assets and maximize returns for creditors. This task entails conducting detailed investigations and pursuing legal actions, processes that demand a careful balance of inquiry, judgment, and responsibility.
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
Introduction
Preventive measures
Out-of-court reorganisation
In-court reorganisation
Modernisation of bankruptcy
On 15 November 2023, the Temporary Transparency of Expedited Liquidation Act enters into force, initially for a period of two years. Expedited liquidation (also known as 'turboliquidation') concerns the dissolution of a legal entity with no assets, at its own initiative. The temporary Act aims to increase transparency in the case of an expedited liquidation and to improve the protection of creditors.