Standard Profil’s scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by the English High Court on 9 September 2025, notwithstanding a recent Frankfurt court decision casting doubt on whether English restructuring plans and schemes of arrangement proposed by German companies would be capable of sanction by the English courts going forward as a result of recognition issues (see ‘More on this topic’).
When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”
When a company is in financial distress, its directors will face difficult choices. Should they trade on to trade out of the company's financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they delay filing and the company goes into administration or liquidation, will the directors be at risk from a wrongful trading claim by the subsequently appointed liquidator? Once in liquidation, will they be held to have separately breached their duties as directors and face a misfeasance claim? If they file precipitously, will creditors complain they did not do enough to save the business?
On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, addressing the question of whether a company can use bankruptcy to resolve the liability of non-debtor third parties. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and an injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge the claims against a nondebtor without the consent of the affected claimants.
On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. ____ (2024) holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow for the inclusion of non-consensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans. This decision settles a long-standing circuit split on the propriety of such releases and clarifies that a plan may not provide for the release of claims against non-debtors without the consent of the claimants.
In its recent German Pellets decision, the Fifth Circuit held that a creditor could not assert its indemnification defenses in a suit brought by the trustee of a liquidation trust because the Chapter 11 plan’s express language permanently enjoined the defenses and the creditor chose not to participate in the debtor’s bankruptcy despite having actual knowledge of it.
The United States Supreme Court recently accepted review of In re Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 60 F.4th 73 (4th Cir.
THE BRIEF
FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION QUARTERLY
FALL 2023
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Were There Underwriting Requirements for PPP Loans After All? The Sound-Value Requirement May Pose Risk for PPP Lenders
3
Noteworthy10
District Court Upholds New ERISA Rules on ESG Investing
10
Fourth Circuit Holds That Class-Action Waivers Must Be Addressed Before Class Certification
12
Ninth Circuit: Fees for Claims-Made Settlements Must Be Based on Actual Recovery
13
Introduction
Preventive measures
Out-of-court reorganisation
In-court reorganisation
Modernisation of bankruptcy
On 15 November 2023, the Temporary Transparency of Expedited Liquidation Act enters into force, initially for a period of two years. Expedited liquidation (also known as 'turboliquidation') concerns the dissolution of a legal entity with no assets, at its own initiative. The temporary Act aims to increase transparency in the case of an expedited liquidation and to improve the protection of creditors.