The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. – holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize the release of third-party claims against non-debtors in a reorganization plan without the consent of the affected claimants – will have a lasting impact on mass tort bankruptcy cases and likely nullifies one of the primary benefits of the so-called “Texas Two-Step” strategy: obtaining third-party releases of the debtor entity’s non-debtor affiliates.

In most bankruptcies, the company decides to file for relief. In involuntary bankruptcies, creditors force the company into bankruptcy. Involuntary petitions are an extreme remedy, and therefore the requirements and standards to meet for filing such petitions are strictly construed and applied. If creditors meet the requirements under the Bankruptcy Code for filing an involuntary petition, it can serve as a powerful tool to use against a debtor.

Key Issues

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.

Unlike traditional Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, sometimes called "free fall" cases, where a debtor files for bankruptcy and determines its path out of bankruptcy over the course of the following months, some debtors enter into bankruptcy with a plan entirely (or mostly) drafted, with an emergence strategy already completed. In these cases, debtors enter bankruptcy with pre-packaged plans or pre-negotiated plans (sometimes called pre-arranged plans) ready to file on or just after their petition date.

The market is experiencing almost unprecedented levels of liquidity, across public and private debt and equity capital markets. This is staunching restructuring activity, which might otherwise be expected to rise (not least as pandemic-related government support starts to withdraw). There are also many companies still sponsoring defined benefit pension schemes. The statutory and regulatory landscape in this area has evolved significantly in recent months – with new powers for regulators, and new restructuring tools for debtors.

In a bankruptcy case, a preference action1 is often asserted pursuant to Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code against a creditor to claw back funds paid to the creditor in the 90 days prior to the bankruptcy. While the most common defenses to a preference action are the ordinary course of business defense2, the new value defense3, and the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense4, there are other defenses that a savvy creditor should consider to reduce or even eliminate preference liability.

Key Issues

Sales pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code have become commonplace in bankruptcy cases as a mechanism to liquidate a debtor's assets and maximize value for creditors. Selling the debtor's assets to a third party provides a new go-forward business partner for the debtor's vendors and customers, and likely provides continuity of jobs for the debtor's former employees. Due to the benefits associated with a sale of the debtor's assets, creditors or parties-in-interest may be under the misconception that they need not pay attention to the sale process.

While securitisations offer numerous benefits, there are a number of important points for originators to consider to facilitate entering into a securitisation transaction and to avoid prolonged legal work further down the line. In this article, we briefly discuss essential points that originators should be aware of and discuss with prospective lenders or arrangers prior to structuring a securitisation.

Pursuant to Section 341 of Title 11 of the U.S. Code (the Bankruptcy Code), the U.S. Trustee is required to convene and preside over a meeting of the creditors of a debtor (the 341 Meeting). The purpose of the 341 Meeting is to examine the debtor's financial position and to confirm facts stated by the debtor in the bankruptcy filing. While creditors are not required to attend the 341 Meeting, creditors have an opportunity to examine the debtor and ask questions related to the debtor's financials and the bankruptcy case.