The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2024 has been commenced with effect from 1 July 2024.

In the most significant decision of the decade on a matter of U.S. bankruptcy law, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its highly anticipated decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. ____ (2024) on June 27, 2024, striking down the non-consensual third party releases that were the cornerstone of Purdue Pharma's Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization by a vote of 5-4. In doing so, the Court said:

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has decisively redrawn the boundaries between arbitration agreements and insolvency proceedings in the case of Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd.[1]

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.

Overview

The scope and extent of a director's duty is of particular interest to officeholders of companies and their D&O insurers.

How can creditors reduce the risk of a fixed charge being characterised as floating?

The determination as to whether a charge over a valuable asset is fixed or floating can be crucial to a creditor's recovery in an insolvency. To have two cases over the course of little more than a year providing detailed analysis of the nature of fixed and floating charges is indeed a treat. Are there any practical steps creditors can take to reduce the risk of a fixed charge being characterised as floating?

Fluctuating assets?

Last week, in a 5-to-4 decision in the case ofHarrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P, et al., the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ability of bankruptcy courts to order non-consensual third-party releases (i.e., claims held by non-debtors against non-debtor third parties) as part of a Chapter 11 plan.

The High Court has handed down a 533-page judgment in proceedings brought by the liquidators of BHS against its former directors for wrongful trading and misfeasance trading, finding them personally liable for at least £18 million. The case is of great significance to directors of distressed companies. We analyse some key points arising.

Click here to view the judgment.

Background

This article analyses the extent to which dissenting financial creditors are protected under the Indian insolvency regime.

Here’s a dilemma:

• Should bankruptcy be available as a tool for resolving mass tort cases of all types (like it already is in asbestos contexts)?

Here’s an illustration of the dilemma:

• many tort claimants in the Johnson & Johnson case DO NOT want bankruptcy involved; but
• many tort claimants in the Purdue Pharma case were BEGGING the courts to approve the bankruptcy plan.

How do we solve this dilemma?