In Harrington v Purdue Pharma,1 the United States Supreme Court held that so-called “non-consensual third-party releases” were not permitted in restructuring plans proposed under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. A “third-party release” arises where creditors are asked to vote on a restructuring plan or scheme which not only proposes to release the debtor company (i.e. the company that has petitioned for bankruptcy or is proposing the scheme) from all liability but to also release other third parties from any associated liability.
In its most recent precedential bankruptcy decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a claim for breach of contract – even “contingent” or “unliquidated” – is still a claim which can be discharged in a chapter 11 plan. In re Mallinckrodt PLC, No. 23-1111 (3d Cir. Apr. 25, 2024)
First, the not-so-great news in figures:
Welcome to our monthly newsletter, with a summary of the latest news and developments in UK employment law.
In this issue
- Case law updates
- Legislative developments
- Other news
- New guidance
- Consultations
Recent publications
When an employer is insolvent and administrators appointed, job losses are often an inevitable consequence. In this blog we look at the legal obligations arising where redundancies meet the threshold for collective consultation, and the implications for administrators arising out of the recent Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another.
When does the legal obligation to collectively consult apply?
Key takeaways
As discussed in our post last month, it was a long road for Arrowood Indemnity to be placed into liquidation in Delaware.
Key takeaways
The Kemper/Lumbermens saga
To refresh everyone’s recollection, this is a report from Business Insurance from March 14, 2010:
Summary of Purdue Pharma, L.P. v, City of Grand Prairie (In re Purdue Pharma, L.P.), No. 22–110 – Bk (2d Cir. May 30, 2023)