The common law of assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABCs”) has been around for a very long time as an out-of-court process under the law of trusts: debtor is trustor, assignee is trustee, and debtor’s creditors are beneficiaries.

And the common law of ABCs had already been well-established, when the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

Paul, Weiss Named Chapter 11 Firm of the Year in Global Restructuring Review Awards

Global Restructuring Review (GRR) recognized Paul, Weiss as the “Chapter 11 Firm of the Year” in its 2024 GRR Awards, which honor the most impressive restructuring practices and individuals of the past year. The firm was recognized for its role advising in several major chapter 11 matters, including the restructurings of Hornblower, Lumileds, Revlon and Rite Aid, among others

Brian Hermann Discusses Chapter 11 Trends at Bankruptcy Conference

As we enter 2025, we look back on five important decisions that made the news in 2024. Here is the the first case.

In Harrington v Purdue Pharma,¹ the United States Supreme Court held that so-called “non-consensual third-party releases” were not permitted in restructuring plans proposed under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. A “third-party release” arises where creditors are asked to vote on a restructuring plan or scheme which not only proposes to release the debtor company (i.e. the company that has petitioned for bankruptcy or is proposing the scheme) from all liability but to also release other third parties from any associated liability.

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court released its 5-4 opinion in connection with the bankruptcy case of Purdue Pharma L.P. (“Purdue”). Over a vigorous dissent authored by Justice Kavanaugh, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit chapter 11 plans of reorganization to provide for non-consensual releases of non-debtors outside of the asbestos context.

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2017 (June 27, 2024)

In an opinion issued on Sept. 20 by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico, Judge David T. Thuma held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not prevent a bankruptcy court from determining whether the automatic stay applies to pending state court litigation. See In re Shook, Case No. 24-10724-t7 (Bankr. N.M. Sept. 20, 2024) [ECF No. 54].

Ever since Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code in 1984 to remedy the U.S. Supreme Court's 1982 ruling declaring the jurisdictional groundwork of title 11 unconstitutional, there have been lingering questions regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to rule on the many matters and proceedings that must typically be resolved in a bankruptcy case. One of those questions—namely, whether the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over claims and assets with respect to which the court has granted relief from the Bankruptcy Code's "automatic stay"—was addressed by the U.S.

Disagreement regarding the interpretation of section 365(c) of the Bankruptcy Code has led to divergent rulings among the bankruptcy and federal circuit courts regarding whether a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor can assume an executory contract or unexpired lease that is unassignable under applicable non-bankruptcy law without the counterparty's consent—even where the debtor has no intention of assigning the agreement to a third party.

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on September 10, 2024 issued its anticipated opinion in In re The Hertz Corp., with a majority holding that make-whole premiums constitute unmatured interest disallowed by the US Bankruptcy Code, but also finding that solvent debtors must pay creditors their full claims as dictated by contract, including make-whole and post-petition interest, before distributions can be made to equity.