The general rule is that claims of the bankruptcy estate against third parties (e.g., preference claims and tort claims) can be sold to third parties in a § 363 sale.[Fn. 1]
However, a recent opinion from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals discusses whether a state’s champerty law impairs a § 363 sale.[Fn. 2]
Four U.S. Supreme Court justices (Kagan, Kavanaugh, Roberts and Sotomayor) provide the following summary of their Purdue Pharmadissent in the Purdue Pharma case.
Wrong & Devastating
Today’s five-justice majority opinion is wrong on the law and devastating for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families:
Despite three recent landmark UK restructuring plan decisions, uncertainty remains around the value, if any, a plan company should offer dissenting creditors as the “deliverability price” of a plan.
Actions brought against the BHS directors by the group’s liquidators have resulted in the largest reported award for wrongful trading since the provision’s introduction, but the judgment highlights some unsettled areas of the law relating to directors’ duties.
The key distinction between a fixed and a floating charge is well established as a matter of English law.
Third Circuit Finds Future Royalty Obligations From Sale Transaction Dischargeable in Bankruptcy
The Third Circuit ruled that the obligations are prepetition "contingent and unliquidated" claims that can be discharged in a bankruptcy.
The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.
The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.
Ever since unpaid taxes due to HMRC were “crammed down” pursuant to a restructuring plan that it voted against but did not actively oppose in Houst,1 HMRC has challenged restructuring plans and asserted its interests more aggressively, causing the failure of restructuring plans inNasmyth
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Sequana1leaves many unanswered questions, and finding a common thread between the four quite separate judgments has proved challenging for practitioners and directors alike. The recent decision in Hunt v.