Here’s my take on third-party releases in a bankruptcy plan [not that anyone asked]:

In earlier posts, the Red Zone has discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), which held that increased U.S.

In a recent case, the High Court has had one of its first opportunities to consider BTI v Sequana [2022] UKSC 25 (see our previous update here), in which the Supreme Court gave important guidance on the existence and scope of the duty of company directors to have regard to the interests of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”, which arises in an insolvency scenario).

In earlier posts, the Red Zone has discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), which held that increased U.S. Trustee quarterly fees for large Chapter 11 debtors between 2018 and 2020 under the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 (the “2017 Act”) were unconstitutional because of disparate treatment of Chapter 11 debtors in Bankruptcy Administrator (“BA”) districts, and subsequent judicial decisions determining the appropriate remedy for debtors who overpaid those fees.

“Notwithstanding the court of appeals’ error, this case does not warrant this Court’s review.”

An appeals court ruled recently that chapter 5 avoidance actions are property of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate that can be sold in section 363 sales. In re Simply Essentials, LLC, No. 22-2011, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21814 (8th Cir. Aug. 21, 2023). The decision follows similar rulings by other appeals courts.

The long awaited Supreme Court decision on the Mainzeal appeal is out, addressing issues of “fundamental importance to the business community”. The judgment essentially upheld the factual findings of the lower Courts that the Mainzeal directors had breached directors’ duties under the Companies Act 1993, and it provides important clarity of the legal principles - and practical steps - that are relevant to directors of companies facing financial difficulties.

Important learnings

Key Takeaways

In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.

In a recent decision, Bruce v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified the limits of bankruptcy court jurisdiction over class actions. Specifically, the court rejected a bankruptcy court’s ruling that allowed a plaintiff’s nationwide class action to survive Defendant Citibank, N.A.’s (“Citi”) motion to dismiss and strike class allegations.

Consensus remains elusive on the two major questions concerning the application of bankruptcy law in mass tort cases. In the past few months, at least five major decisions have addressed the significant issues of the availability of third-party releases and the two-step bankruptcies. Appeals have been filed or are threatened. In the meantime, the authors of a University of Chicago Law Review article argue that, as a matter of public policy, both should be available with court safeguards.