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.

Weil's Appellate & Strategic Counseling group welcomes you to Weil's SCOTUS Term Review. Here, we summarize and analyze the cases from the 2023 Supreme Court Term that are most germane to our clients' businesses.

Buying parts of a distressed company may offer great opportunities for buyers. When a company is struggling but not yet insolvent, external financing might dry up and the sale of non-core activities may be a last resort to generate fresh cash.

The Abu Dhabi Global Market (the “ADGM”) courts have recently handed down their decision in NMC Healthcare Limited & Others v Shetty & Others ([2024] ADGMCFI 0007). The decision deals with several important principles in relation to fraudulent/wrongful trading liabilities under ADGM law. Given the ADGM re-domiciliation (or continuation) regime, enabling companies incorporated elsewhere to be redomiciled to ADGM with relative ease, the decision is likely to be of interest beyond the borders of the ADGM.

In the recent decision Sian Participation v Halimeda (Sian), the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Privy Council) held on a BVI appeal that a winding-up petition should not be stayed or dismissed merely because the underlying debt is subject to a generally-worded arbitration agreement.

In the most significant decision of the decade on a matter of U.S. bankruptcy law, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its highly anticipated decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. ____ (2024) on June 27, 2024, striking down the non-consensual third party releases that were the cornerstone of Purdue Pharma's Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization by a vote of 5-4. In doing so, the Court said:

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

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.

Today, in Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, the Supreme Court held that debtors who paid fees in bankruptcy cases administered by the U.S. Trustee Program are not entitled to any relief, even though the Court previously ruled that those debtors had been unconstitutionally overcharged. This decision is the culmination of several years of litigation concerning differential fee structures across judicial districts.

This morning, the Supreme Court decided Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., which clarifies that any party with a "direct financial stake in the outcome" of a reorganization has standing as a "party in interest" to object to a Chapter 11 plan. 11 U.S.C. 1109(b). Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sotomayor held that the debtor's insurer has standing to object even if the plan purports to preserve the insurer's legal rights and thus is said to be "insurance neutral."