The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Sequana¹leaves many unanswered questions, and finding a common thread between the four quite separate judgments has proved challenging for practitioners and directors alike. The recent decision in Hunt v.

The new Spanish Bankruptcy Law in September 2022 (TRLC)¹ ushered in perhaps the most radical changes to the domestic restructuring market in any EU Member State that has so far implemented the EU Directive on Preventive Restructuring.² For the first time, following satisfaction of certain conditions, the disenfranchisemen

The UK water industry is rarely out of the headlines, whether for operational performance issues or reports of perpetual financial distress. It may therefore be more than a coincidence that the UK government has chosen now to introduce new rules for the special administration regime (SAR) that applies to water companies.

It is a rare occasion that one can be assured with certainty that, if they file a motion with a bankruptcy court, it will be granted. But, in the Third Circuit, that is exactly what will happen if a creditor or other party in interest moves for an examiner to be appointed under Section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Once considered to be within the discretion of a bankruptcy court “as is appropriate,” the appointment of an examiner is now guaranteed if the statutory predicates are fulfilled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

FSMA 2023 includes a court procedure for failing insurers to temporarily write-down liabilities, with implications for counterparties.

Advice that may have served House of Pain in their 1992 hit song, “Jump Around,” to “bring a shotgun” to battle likely does not translate well to plaintiffs in federal litigation contemplating bringing a “shotgun” pleading to court. In this article we explore types of shotgun pleadings identified by courts and outline potential responses to a shotgun pleading.

Shotgun Pleadings and Relationship to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

In May I wrote about a manufacturer of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) excused from the PFAS Multi-District Litigation in South Carolina because its PFAS-related liabilities might exceed its assets which is something for a Federal Bankruptcy Court to sort out.  At the time I worried that this was only one of many PFAS-related bankruptcies we would be seeing

On average, the Supreme Court hears a single bankruptcy case each term. But during the October 2022 term, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable four decisions in bankruptcy cases. These decisions, which are summarized below, address appellate issues relating to sale orders, the discharge of claims obtained by fraud, and sovereign immunity issues in two different contexts.

I. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not a jurisdictional provision that precludes appellate review of asset sale orders.

The ruling, which held that the transaction did not violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, highlights the importance of carefully drafting lending documents.

On June 6, 2023, Judge David Jones of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the Bankruptcy Court) held that the 2020 Serta Simmons "uptier" transaction (the Transaction) was permitted under Serta's existing 2016 credit agreement (the Credit Agreement), a decision that could have broad implications for the permissibility of such transactions.1

A bankruptcy petition should not proceed if the debt is disputed and subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court.