Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is designed to give “honest, but unfortunate debtors” a “fresh start” by automatically staying litigation and dealing with the bankrupt’s debts and liabilities in an orderly fashion. But what if the bankrupt was dishonest? Should they be entitled to have litigation stayed and their debts discharged? The BIA contains tools to address this.

In a case of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, the US Court of Appeals recently handed bankruptcy trustees a significant power by ruling in TheLovering Tubbs Trust v. Hoffman (In re O’Gorman) that a trustee can avoid intentionally fraudulent transfers under the Federal Bankruptcy Code, even if no creditor suffered harm as a result.

On August 28, 2024, Judge Gregory B. Williams of the US District Court for the District of Delaware issued a ruling in AIG Financial Products Corporation, Civ. No. 23-573, affirming an order on appeal from the Delaware Bankruptcy Court that denied a motion to dismiss a chapter 11 petition as a bad faith filing.

Construction insolvency is not a new problem. With the continued presence of fixed price contracts, in an industry which has always been troubled with cash flow problems and low profit margins, coupled with persistent cost inflation and labour and materials issues affecting the supply chain, it is no surprise that we continue to see insolvencies. The question is, what can you do to protect yourself from insolvency?

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.

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."