Cannabis Law Now Podcast - The 4-1-1 on Cannabis Receiverships from a Top Cannabis Receiver
Podcast - Betty… ¿y si nos vamos a la reorganización?
Findings from Gibbins’ Annual Healthcare Bankruptcy Report
Spotlight on Financial Services- Consumer bankruptcy
Commercial Recovery
SDNY Chooses “Time Approach” to Calculating Lease Termination Damages Collectible Against a Bankrupt Estate
Cannabis and Bankruptcy Laws
The New Value Defense
The “Catch-22” of Preference Law
Consensual Third-Party Releases
Breaking Down the Latest Decision in the Purdue Pharma Case
AGG Talks: U.S. Bankruptcy Basics for Foreign Investors
Repossessions and Bankruptcy Post-COVID, Post-Fulton [More with McGlinchey, Ep. 26]
The Evolution of Cross-Border Restructuring Processes
Blakes Continuity Podcast: What to Expect When Insolvency Crosses the Border
ADR's Big Moment
Bankruptcy Basics and Recent Developments
Podcast - Credit Funds: Make-Wholes and Cramdowns: Understanding the Recent Second Circuit Momentive Decision
- Who is impacted: Companies and organizations involved in cross-border insolvency proceedings, particularly those seeking to enforce or challenge nonconsensual third-party releases in the United States. - What is changing:...more
The United States Supreme Court has held that the sovereign immunity waiver in Section 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code does not extend to state law claims “nested” within a Section 544(b) claim for relief, depriving bankruptcy...more
Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable...more
Non-Consensual Third-Party Releases are Not Permissible in Section 363 Sales or Rule 9019 Settlements, Regardless of the Suggestions of Some Bankruptcy Courts...more
Recently, in the case United States v. Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the sovereign immunity waiver provision in the Bankruptcy Code is jurisdictional only and does not waive the federal government’s sovereign...more
On March 26, 2025, the United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Miller, No. 23-824, resolving a circuit split and holding that in an action brought under § 544(b) of the bankruptcy code, § 106(a)’s sovereign...more
In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize a bankruptcy court to grant a release and injunction that extinguishes direct claims against nondebtor third parties...more
A recent Bankruptcy Court decision granted recognition to a Mexican concurso mercantile and gave full force and effect to a Mexican concurso plan that contained nonconsensual third-party releases....more
The first full year of the post-COVID-pandemic era was characterized in the United States by continued economic recovery, persistently high consumer interest rates—despite three cuts in the benchmark federal funds rate in...more
The Supreme Court’s 2024 Purdue decision1 held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize a release and injunction under a Chapter 11 plan of claims against a non-debtor, even if they relate to claims against or by the...more
The most notable decision in the bankruptcy world in 2024 was the Supreme Court’s decision in Purdue Pharma. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2071 (2024). At the heart of the fight in Purdue Pharma were...more
In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow bankruptcy courts to approve distributions to creditors in a "structured dismissal" of a chapter...more
U.S. Bankruptcy Court does not enforce an asset freeze order from a Brazilian insolvency proceeding recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. Recognition of a foreign proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy...more
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down three bankruptcy rulings to finish the Term ended in July 2024. The decisions address the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans, the standing of insurance...more
On June 6, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., et al. The Court held an insurer with financial responsibility for claims in bankruptcy...more
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 6, 2024, held that an insurer with a financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a party in interest and has standing to raise and be heard on issues in a Chapter 11 proceeding. In Truck...more
They say every man needs protection, they say that every man must fall. For over 40 years, “the bankruptcy community has recognized the resolution of mass tort claims as a widely accepted core function of bankruptcy courts,”...more
On June 6, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., et al.,1 nullifying the insurance neutrality test for insurer standing in bankruptcy...more
A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court has barred the issuance of non-consensual third-party releases in Chapter 11 Plans. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that “the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction...more
Opinion has potential implications for a broader set of parties with potential liabilities affected by a Chapter 11 process. In Truck Ins. Exch. v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., No. 22-1079, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2483 (June 6,...more
On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a 5-4 decision rejecting the nonconsensual releases of the Sackler family in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case. The split is an interesting alignment of Justices: Gorsuch writing...more
The US Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision on June 27, 2024 that nonconsensual third-party releases, as proposed in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan, were not permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. A nonconsensual...more
On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit nonconsensual releases of nondebtors. As a...more
Last week’s Privilege Point described an opinion requiring a corporate party’s witness to disclose communications with his Latham & Watkins lawyers, because he confirmed with that firm his own “commercial understanding” about...more
The US Supreme Court ruled that an insurer with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a “party in interest” under Bankruptcy Code §1109(b) that “may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue” in a Chapter 11...more