The intention of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBC’) is to rehabilitate the companies and individuals by way of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIRP’).
Unlike traditional Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, sometimes called "free fall" cases, where a debtor files for bankruptcy and determines its path out of bankruptcy over the course of the following months, some debtors enter into bankruptcy with a plan entirely (or mostly) drafted, with an emergence strategy already completed. In these cases, debtors enter bankruptcy with pre-packaged plans or pre-negotiated plans (sometimes called pre-arranged plans) ready to file on or just after their petition date.
Das StaRUG eignet sich insbesondere für finanzielle, weniger für personelle, Restrukturierungen
Das Gesetz über den Stabilisierungs- und Restrukturierungsrahmen für Unternehmen,kurz „StaRUG″ ist zum 1. Januar 2021 in Kraft getreten und setzt die sog. Restrukturierungsrichtlinie (Richtlinie [EU] 2019/1023) um.
The Court of Appeal has, in Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (OP3 International), comprehensively considered the contours of a director’s duty to consider the interest of creditors in certain circumstances (Creditor Duty). In this important decision, the apex court examined when the Creditor Duty first becomes engaged as well as the nature, scope and content of the duty.
The US Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision on June 27, 2024 that nonconsensual third-party releases, as proposed in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan, were not permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. A nonconsensual third-party release serves to eliminate the direct claims of third parties against nondebtor parties without soliciting the consent of such affected claimants. This contrasts with consensual releases and opt-in or opt-out mechanisms permitted by courts.
In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.
The IBBI Working Group on Group Insolvency (under the chairmanship of UK Sinha) and the MCA Cross Border Insolvency Rules/Regulations Committee having submitted their reports (collectively “Reports”) had recommended the introduction of a framework governing the resolution of enterprise groups under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) in September 2019 and December 2021 respectively.
The High Court has found the former directors of collapsed retail chain BHS liable for wrongful trading, misfeasant trading and individual acts of misfeasance.
Although overall quantum is yet to be decided, this has been widely reported as the largest wrongful trading award the courts have made since the introduction of the Insolvency Act 1986.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed confirmation of Purdue Pharma’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan of reorganization on the basis that its non-consensual third-party releases were not permissible. It held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize the inclusion of a release in a plan that effectively seeks to discharge claims against a non-debtor without the consent of affected claimants. The decision prohibits an approach to global resolution of mass tort litigations that has been utilized in numerous cases over the last 40 years.
Takeaways
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.