On December 31, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its long awaited opinion in the disputes arising from the controversial “uptier” transaction executed by Serta Simmons Bedding, L.L.C. (“Serta”) in 2020 and the confirmation of Serta’s chapter 11 plan by the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court in 2023. The Fifth Circuit reversed former Bankruptcy Judge David Jones’ summary judgment ruling that the 2020 uptier transaction was permissible under Serta’s existing credit agreements.
The Delaware Chancery Court placed Arrowood Indemnity Company in liquidation on November 8, 2023, by a liquidation order. The court found Arrowood to be insolvent by the court, and appointed a receiver to liquidate Arrowood’s assets, evaluate any claims made against Arrowood and evaluate the payment of claims made against it.
Background
In an opinion issued on August 16, 2024 (In re Robertshaw US Holding Corp., Bankr. S.D. Tex., Case No. 24-90052, Docket No.
Asset freeze measures enacted by the United Kingdom against designated persons (DPs) can, under certain circumstances, extend to entities “owned or controlled” by DPs. To date, there have been few—and at times partly contradictory—English court cases addressing the “ownership and control” criteria under the UK sanctions regime. The latest judgment in Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank sought to reconcile the previous guidance provided by the courts in the Mints and Litasco cases.
The US Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision on June 27, 2024 that nonconsensual third-party releases, as proposed in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan, were not permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. A nonconsensual third-party release serves to eliminate the direct claims of third parties against nondebtor parties without soliciting the consent of such affected claimants. This contrasts with consensual releases and opt-in or opt-out mechanisms permitted by courts.
Blog Post:
Introduction
For initiating proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (“IBC”), categorisation of a creditor as either a “financial creditor” or an “operational creditor” is a rather significant first step. Such categorisation is not merely organisational, but essential since the rights, obligations and procedural requirements for realisation of debt by financial and operational creditors also differ under the IBC.
The High Court of Bombay (“Court”) in a recent judgment[1] has upheld the NCLT’s powers to direct the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) to release attached properties of a corporate debtor, once a resolution plan in respect of the corporate debtor had been approved.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1]judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).