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.

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.

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.

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.

While securitisations offer numerous benefits, there are a number of important points for originators to consider to facilitate entering into a securitisation transaction and to avoid prolonged legal work further down the line. In this article, we briefly discuss essential points that originators should be aware of and discuss with prospective lenders or arrangers prior to structuring a securitisation.

A Hong Kong court has refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that practitioners should explain the key terms and effect of any proposed restructuring in a way which can be easily understood by the creditors and the court.

In Re Sino Oiland Gas Holdings Ltd [2024] HKCFI 1135, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that creditors had been given insufficient information about the restructuring and the scheme that would enable them to make an informed decision at the scheme meeting.

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has finally laid to rest the vexed issue of whether an arbitration agreement or a winding-up petition should take precedence in an insolvency situation. In two parallel decisions, the Court of Appeal ruled that an arbitration agreement should be treated in the same way as an exclusive jurisdiction clause and that the principle should be given a wide interpretation.