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.

In In re Flatbush Rho Mezz LLC, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York allowed a secured creditor to be paid the entirety of a $5 million bond based on a loan with 24% default rate interest that continued to accrue interest during the pendency of an appeal.

Background of the Dispute

One of the three debtors, 85 Flatbush RHO Mezz LLC ("Mezz"), acquired a mixed-use property “with a hotel component” in Brooklyn, New York.

Restructuring Corporate Groups: Transferring Employees under a Scheme

Intersnack Mid Co Pty Ltd(No. 2) [2024] NSWSC 9 ("Intersnack")

Restructuring or consolidating corporate groups may involve a new or different company in the group employing staff. In such a case an order can be made under s 413, Corporations Act ("CA") giving effect to that arrangement including where the staff are employed under an enterprise agreement.

1. Commercial Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filings Have Increased Significantly Year-Over-Year: There has been a significant increase in the number of commercial Chapter 11 cases (larger company filings) in 2024. By way of example, there were 1,894 commercial Chapter 11 filings (including subchapter V filings) during the first quarter of 2024, up 43% from the 1,325 total commercial chapter 11 filings during the first calendar quarter of 2023 according to data provided by Epiq Bankruptcy, the leading provider of U.S. bankruptcy filing data.

The Supreme Court issued a landmark and potentially far-reaching decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124 (“Purdue”), on June 27, 2024. We set forth the facts and our initial observations below, with a more complete description of the decision at the end of this bulletin.

What Did the Court Decide?

In a recent decision,the High Court ordered two former directors of BHS (British Home Stores) to pay at least £18m to creditors for their role in the collapse of the former high street giant.