Written by - Thomas H. Curran

As cross-border insolvencies continue to evolve, a notable shift is emerging in how complex restructurings are being executed. While Chapter 11 has long been the dominant forum for large corporate reorganizations, an increasing number of companies - particularly those with international capital structures - are turning to foreign restructuring regimes as a primary venue, with Chapter 15 serving as the mechanism to extend those proceedings into the United States.

To those familiar with both U.S. and Australian insolvency regimes, Australia's creditors' scheme of arrangement (Scheme) may appear, at first glance, to resemble a Chapter 11 restructuring in disguise. This is because both regimes facilitate creditor compromise, allow incumbent management to remain in control, involve court supervision and rely on class-based voting structures to approve a restructuring outcome.

How does the “indicative rulings” process work when a settlement occurs while a bankruptcy dispute is pending on appeal before a U.S. circuit court of appeals?  In such circumstance: 

Key Takeaway

On January 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton that motions to vacate void judgments under Rule 60(b)(4) must be filed within a “reasonable time.” The longstanding assumption in most circuits—that void judgments could be challenged without any time limit—is gone. Corporate defendants should act promptly upon learning of any judgment entered against them.

Rule 60: The Escape Hatch from Final Judgments

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has issued a significant ruling in the cross‑border insolvency practice that reaffirms U.S. recognition of foreign restructuring plans containing third-party releases.