Insights Search

On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court” or “Court”) rendered a 5-4 opinion in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. that “the [B]ankruptcy [C]ode does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seeks to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants.”

On February 20, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an Opinion, which held that challenges to “integral” aspects of a bankruptcy sale are statutorily moot under Bankruptcy Code § 363(m).¹ 

On May 30, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit” or the “Court”) rendered a much anticipated opinion (the “Opinion”),¹ reversing the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit non-consensual third-party releases of direct claims and affirming the order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) confirming the chapter 11 plan (the “Purdue Plan”) of Purdue Pharma L.P. (“Purdue”), which approved non-consensual third-party releases of the owners of Purdue — members of the Sackler family.

On March 28, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) rendered an opinion (the “Opinion”)¹ affirming the confirmation order of Laurie S. Silverstein, of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) that confirmed the chapter 11 plan (the “Plan”) of the Boy Scouts of America (“BSA”) (collectively, the “Confirmation Order”).²

Vinson & Elkins attorneys discuss recent creative deleveraging and restructuring transactions, including non-pro rata uptier exchanges, priming transactions, and financing assets transferred to unrestricted...

In a provocative demonstration that it scrutinizes all types of transactions, no matter their origin, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) has reportedly been vetting the proposed $1 billion sale of bankrupt crypto lender Voyager Digital’s assets to Binance.

In Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Mallinckrodt PLC, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that a debtor that purchased intellectual property under a prepetition asset purchase agreement could continue to retain and use the property post-confirmation while discharging its obligations to pay any future royalties otherwise owed.

On September 8, 2022, a three-judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) reversed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) when it determined that lenders of a syndicated loan facility to Revlon, Inc.BY

Third-party release provisions are a common feature of almost every chapter 11 plan in large bankruptcy cases. Despite this, there has long been a split among bankruptcy courts and Circuit Courts of Appeal on the scope and permissibility of such third-party release provisions.

This case arises out of a dispute between J.C. Penney Properties, Inc., as predecessor in interest to J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (“JCP Properties”), and Klairmont Korners, LLC (“Klairmont”) regarding a ground lease and related sublease for commercial real estate (respectively, the “Lease” and the “Sublease”).

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on June 27, 2022, to determine whether section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code—concerning appellate review of bankruptcy court sale orders—is jurisdictional or only limits the remedy an appellate court may fashion.

Debtor-in-possession financing is utilized when available and necessary in chapter 11 cases, and has come to play an integral role in the restructuring process. In this article, the authors begin by discussing DIP lenders, financing structure, and issues on exit financing.