In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that the US Bankruptcy Code does not permit a debtor to confirm a chapter 11 plan that releases non-debtors from similar or related claims the creditors could assert directly against them.

On July 19, 2024, Judge Michael Wiles of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in In re Mercon Coffee Corporation, Case No. 23-11945, invalidating insider releases in a proposed chapter 11 plan on the basis that the releases were improper retention-related transfers.

Judge Wiles found that he could not approve the releases – even though the debtors had promised them and insiders had relied upon that promise – because the releases did not meet the strict requirements of Bankruptcy Code Section 503(c).

Case summary:

When a contractor failed to pay certain agreed invoices the sub-contractor issued a winding up petition. The contractor applied to halt the advertising of the petition on the grounds that the debts were bona fide disputed on substantial grounds as there was a cross claim which exceeded the amount claimed. The court refused to halt proceedings because the absence of a withholding notice under the HGCRA meant that there were no substantial grounds for disputing the petition.

Comment:

A landmark ruling has paved the way for companies to restructure without necessarily making their pension scheme ineligible for the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). Trustees in the case of L v M sought the court’s support (and that of the Pensions Regulator) for a plan to prevent the insolvency of the sponsoring employer which would result in an apportionment of the debt due to the scheme from the employers, the winding up of the scheme and would take the scheme into the PPF.

Several tort claims were made against T & N Limited (“the Insured”) arising out of its use of asbestos. As a consequence it became unlikely to be able to pay its debts. Administrators were appointed for the purposes of approving a scheme of arrangement under section 425 of the Companies Act 1985.

Several tort claims were made against T & N Limited (“the Insured”) arising out of its use of asbestos. As a consequence it became unlikely to be able to pay its debts. Administrators were appointed for the purposes of approving a scheme of arrangement under section 425 of the Companies Act 1985.

Freakley v Centre Reinsurance International Company & Ors [2006] UKHL 45

This case concerns whether a claim to reimbursement of claims-handling expenses should have priority over other creditors on insolvency of the insured.

On March 27, 2020, President Donald Trump signed into law the third major coronavirus-related legislation in the last several weeks – the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act – in response to the pandemic and resulting economic crisis. The CARES Act includes substantial federal spending and loan commitments that will benefit individuals and businesses.

Unprecedented times call for unprecedented solutions. This has never been more true than now as our world struggles through impactful changes to our lives, both at work and at play, as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As social distancing, stay-at-home orders, and sheltering-in-place have forced the closing of shopping centers and retail stores, bars and restaurants, movie theaters, and other venues, “business as usual” has largely, but hopefully only temporarily, ground to a halt.

The impact of COVID-19 is being felt at all levels of the economy and will work its way through bankruptcy courts for years to come. In these early days, many creditors who are themselves suffering are providing assistance to troubled companies. Suppliers and commercial landlords are agreeing to various forms of relief, including modified credit terms and rent relief to allow customers to bridge this period of unprecedented disruption. While these corporate good Samaritans are providing immediate aid they may be subjecting themselves to the risk of future losses.