The restructuring industry held its proverbial breath following the Supreme Court’s decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., which invalidated the nonconsensual third-party release in the debtors’ plan. While
Continue Reading New Jersey Bankruptcy Courts Remain a Strong Option for Debtors Seeking to Obtain a Third-Party Release in a post-Purdue Pharma World Following the BowFlex DecisionThe Impact of Purdue Pharma
By Brett Axelrod & Agostino Zammiello on
It has been approximately two months since the highly anticipated Supreme Court decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., and it is already making a significant impact in bankruptcies…
Continue Reading The Impact of Purdue PharmaNew Jersey Releases New Chapter 11 Complex Procedures and Other Rule Updates
By Agostino Zammiello on
Pursuant to the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court’s (the “Court”) annual rule making cycle, the Court implemented various changes to the New Jersey Local Rules and Local Forms, which became effective…
Continue Reading New Jersey Releases New Chapter 11 Complex Procedures and Other Rule UpdatesThe Circuit City Landmine Redux, the Final Word (Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC): Supreme Court Holds that Chapter 11 Debtors Do Not Get a Refund on U.S. Trustee Quarterly Fees Under Unconstitutional Fee Increase
By Keith C. Owens & Agostino Zammiello on
As previously discussed and anticipated in prior blog posts,[1] the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U.S. 464, 142 S.Ct. 1770, 213 L.Ed.2d 39…
Continue Reading The Circuit City Landmine Redux, the Final Word (Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC): Supreme Court Holds that Chapter 11 Debtors Do Not Get a Refund on U.S. Trustee Quarterly Fees Under Unconstitutional Fee IncreaseWho’s a Party in Interest? The Supreme Court’s Ruling in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. Opens the Door for Insurers to Intervene in Certain Bankruptcy Proceedings
By Agostino Zammiello on
Kaiser Gypsum Company Inc. and Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc. (collectively, the “Debtors”), manufacturers of asbestos-containing cement products, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy on September 30, 2016 (“Petition Date”) in the…
Continue Reading Who’s a Party in Interest? The Supreme Court’s Ruling in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. Opens the Door for Insurers to Intervene in Certain Bankruptcy ProceedingsThe More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same? Survival of Small Businesses Again Dependent on Action From Congress
By Mary Gilmore & Nicholas A. Koffroth on
Right now, a business with less than $7.5 million in debt can file an easier, cheaper, and more efficient bankruptcy than a traditional Chapter 11. That privilege will soon be…
Continue Reading The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same? Survival of Small Businesses Again Dependent on Action From CongressAssignments for the Benefit of Creditors – an often-overlooked state law alternative to Chapter 7 bankruptcy
By Magdalena Schardt on
by Magdalena Schardt
For some folks the three letters ABC are a reminder of elementary school and singing a song to learn the alphabet. For others, it is a throw…
Continue Reading Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors – an often-overlooked state law alternative to Chapter 7 bankruptcyMediation in Bankruptcy: A Glimpse
By Magdalena Schardt on
If you were a party to a lawsuit or a contested matter in a bankruptcy proceeding, would you be interested in working towards settlement with the assistance of an impartial…
Continue Reading Mediation in Bankruptcy: A GlimpseAre Gate-keeper Provisions in Chapter 11 Confirmation Orders a Stopgap for Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases?
By Martha Chovanes & Michael R. Herz on
As many bankruptcy practitioners are aware, there is a circuit court split with respect to the allowability of non-consensual third-party releases. Notably, in the Purdue Pharma case, the United States…
Continue Reading Are Gate-keeper Provisions in Chapter 11 Confirmation Orders a Stopgap for Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases?What level of “reasonable due diligence” is actually required under Section 547(b) and does it really matter?
By David P. Papiez & Maria Milano on
As bankruptcy attorneys who often defend clients in preference avoidance actions, we were pleased with the 547(b) amendments, effective as of February 20, 2020, requiring a trustee to conduct some…
Continue Reading What level of “reasonable due diligence” is actually required under Section 547(b) and does it really matter?