Le 27 juin 2024, la Cour suprême des États-Unis a publié une décision très attendue qu’elle a rendue dans l’affaire William K. Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2, Petitioner v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. (l’« affaire Purdue »).

Since the inception of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in December 2016, India has witnessed not only a paradigm shift from the conventional ‘debtor in possession’ to a progressive ‘creditor in control’ but has also produced desirable results under the new statutory debt resolution regime.

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. The issue before the Court was whether the Bankruptcy Code permits nondebtors to obtain a release of third-party claims through a debtor’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. An issue that had divided the Circuit Courts of Appeals. The nondebtors set to receive releases under Purdue’s plan were members of the Sackler family — the owners of Purdue Pharma — and their other entities.

A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.

The Problem

Here’s the problem:

Highlights

Long-anticipated U.S. Supreme Court decision in Purdue Pharma shakes up the scope of bankruptcy releases

Insurers get increased ability to participate in bankruptcy cases

Overpayment of bankruptcy fees is not refundable to Chapter 11 debtors

In UKCloud Ltd(Re Insolvency Act 1986) [2024] EWHC 1259 (Ch), the court was again faced with the age-old question of categorisation of a security interest but this time in respect of a new type of asset, internet protocol (IP) addresses. Could fixed charge security be taken over IP addresses and, if so, was it taken here?

How does an arbitration clause, or an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign courts, affect insolvency proceedings?

The effect of an arbitration clause, or an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign courts, on insolvency proceedings has been a topic of longstanding debate in the Courts of Hong Kong, England and other common law jurisdictions.

"The law on 'knowing receipt' has perplexed judges and academics alike for several decades" – Lord Burrows (paragraph 99).

En octobre 2020, la Commission européenne a approuvé une mesure de recapitalisation d'environ 833 millions EUR, notifiée par la Suède et le Danemark, en faveur de SAS. Cette mesure était fondée sur l’Encadrement temporaire relatif aux aides d'État dans le contexte de la crise du COVID-19.

In October 2020, the European Commission approved a recapitalisation measure of approximately €833 million, notified by Sweden and Denmark, in favour of SAS. This measure was adopted under the State aid COVID-19 Temporary framework.

Ryanair challenged the Commission decision and secured its annulment by the General Court of the EU in May 2023 (Case T-238/21). In late 2022, SAS entered a collective insolvency proceeding. Following the annulment of the 2020 decision, the Commission approved again in November 2023 the recapitalisation measure.