In MaIlinckrodt PLC v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 23-1111, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court decision finding a debtor’s obligation to pay a perpetual royalty was an unsecured claim that was dischargeable in bankruptcy. The decision is a cautionary tale for contract counterparties that negotiate future payment rights.

Background

An assignment for the benefit of creditors (ABC) is a process by which a financially distressed company (referred to as the assignor) transfers its assets to a third-party fiduciary (referred to as the assignee). The assignee is responsible for liquidating those assets and distributing the proceeds to the assignor's creditors, pursuant to the priorities established under applicable law. From the perspective of a creditor, there are many important distinctions between an ABC and a bankruptcy case.

Key Issues

Question: Can a retirement fund organized under Canadian law qualify for a state law exemption requiring that it “qualify as a retirement plan” under the Internal Revenue Code?

This question gets all the way to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of appeals, which issues a “No” answer, in Green v. Leibowitz, Case No. 23-2841 (decided 7/16/2024).

After years of hard-fought litigation, most claimants are thrilled to obtain a final and enforceable judgment or arbitration award. However, more often than one thinks, this excitement is followed by the disappointing realization that the defendant has little interest in voluntarily satisfying the award.

In an opinion issued on August 16, 2024 (In re Robertshaw US Holding Corp., Bankr. S.D. Tex., Case No. 24-90052, Docket No.

The general rule is that claims of the bankruptcy estate against third parties (e.g., preference claims and tort claims) can be sold to third parties in a § 363 sale.[Fn. 1]

However, a recent opinion from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals discusses whether a state’s champerty law impairs a § 363 sale.[Fn. 2] 

昨今、ケイマン諸島の判決で、債権者との間のスキーム・オブ・アレンジメントを取り扱ったRe In the Matter of E-House (China) Enterprise Holdings Limited [1]において、セガル裁判官が米国、英国、ヨーロッパにおける制裁措置がスキーム・オブ・アレンジメントにどのような潜在的な法的影響をもたらすか、また、当該スキームが国際的にどのような法的効果を有するのかを明確にする判断を示しました。

現在のマクロ経済環境およびグローバル市場の激動状況に照らせば、誠実な企業再建実施後も継続した企業の事業活動が可能となるような方策を模索することにつき、柔軟で積極的な役割を果たす意思が裁判所にあることを確認したものです。

なお、ケイマン諸島が企業再建における最先端の法域であることは、裁判官による会社債権者との調整案策定のために会社を代理するリストラクチャリング・オフィサーの選任にかかる第一号事例からも示されています。この事例については「ケイマン諸島における新たな企業再建の幕開け」をご参照ください。

背景およびスキーム・オブ・アレンジメントの提案

Four U.S. Supreme Court justices (Kagan, Kavanaugh, Roberts and Sotomayor) provide the following summary of their Purdue Pharmadissent in the Purdue Pharma case.

Wrong & Devastating

Today’s five-justice majority opinion is wrong on the law and devastating for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families:

When the COVID-19 Pandemic incepted, and issues arose as to whether affected policyholders could seek Business Income and Civil Authority coverage from the presence or suspected presence of SARS-CoV-2 and consequent orders of Civil Authority, I thought that the easiest question to answer was whether such policyholders had suffered physical loss or damage (“PLOD”) to their property.

The Majority PLOD Rule Prior to COVID-19

. . . In such circumstances, sealing the indictment “would undermine the purpose of having a statute of limitations at all.”

Introduction