In a highly anticipated decision issued on May 30, 2023, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its opinion in Purdue Pharma LP v. City of Grand Prairie (In re Purdue Pharma LP)¹ approving a Chapter 11 plan’s inclusion of a nonconsensual release of creditors’ direct claims against non-debtor third parties.

This client alert describes the history of the case, identifies some of the key takeaways from the decision and outlines where other jurisdictions in the country stand on nonconsensual third-party releases.

In an anticipated decision, on May 30, 2023, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision approving a Chapter 11 plan’s inclusion of a nonconsensual release of direct claims against non-debtor third parties. Purdue Pharma LP v. City of Grand Prairie (In re Purdue Pharma LP), No. 22-110 (2d Cir. May 30, 2023).

On May 2, 2023, the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana reversed a bankruptcy court’s ruling that read limitations into the application of Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e)’s safe harbor to a stock purchase transaction. Specifically, the District Court relied on the plain language of Section 546 in determining that a chapter 7 trustee could not avoid the transfer of $24.9 million by the debtor to repay a bridge loan in connection with a financed acquisition of the debtor’s stock two years prior to its bankruptcy filing.

On 15 May 2023 (with Reasons for Decision delivered on 18 May 2023), the Companies Court made a winding-up order against Dangdai International Investments Ltd (當代國際投資有限公司) (“the Company”) which is in turn wholly owned by Wuhan Dangdai Science & Technology Industries (Group) Company Ltd (武漢當代科技產業集團股份有限公司) (“Wuhan Dangdai”).

On April 17, 2023, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion holding that a senior lender who uses economic leverage and exercises its statutory and contractual rights upon a borrower’s default, including the right to credit bid as part of a bankruptcy sale process—despite adverse impact on a junior lender—remains a “good faith” purchaser entitled to the protections under Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Facts – Shortly Stated

在终审法院最新颁布的 Re Guy Kwok-hung Lam[2023] HKCFA 9突破性裁决中，终审法院驳回了该案的上诉，并且在判词中就专属管辖权条款（EJC）是否对提交破产呈请有影响这一棘手问题作出裁决，平息了长期对于相关议题的争论。

简而言之，终审法院认可上诉法院大多数法官对于本案的观点，认为一般来说，如果呈请债务的基础争议受制于专属管辖权条款，除非有其他反面因素存在（例如债务人破产的风险将会影响第三方、债务人的呈请以几乎无意义的争议为基础，或者发生滥用法律程序的情况等）， 则法院应驳回该破产呈请。

终审法院在裁定中指出，当只有一名债权人提出破产呈请，而没有证据表明全体债权人都面临风险时，破产制度背后的公共政策因素的重要性则显着降低。

这一裁定反映了法院非常重视当事人自治的原则，以及当事人之间自由达成的协议。该判决将会对破产领域产生深远的影响，以及对处理清算及破产呈请中的仲裁条款产生涟漪效应。

In the latest ground breaking decision in Re Guy Kwok-hung Lam[2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal dismissed the appeal and laid to rest a long-standing debate on the vexing question concerning the impact, if any, exclusive jurisdiction clauses (EJCs) have on the presentation of bankruptcy petitions.

In the second largest US bank failure since the 2008 global financial crisis, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation took over Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) on March 10 and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as SVB’s receiver. Just two days later, the New York State Department of Financial Services took over another bank, Signature Bank, and appointed the FDIC as receiver. And, yesterday, the share price of various European banks plunged following record one-day selloffs.