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.

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.

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.

In a previous

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”).