Findings from Gibbins’ Annual Healthcare Bankruptcy Report
Podcast Episode 186: Restructure This!
Rising Chapter 11 Bankruptcies in Healthcare
The Obligations and Responsibilities of Creditors’ Committees in Crypto Bankruptcies
Recent Tenth Circuit Decision in John Q Hammons Fall Following SCOTUS’ Decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald Could Result in Significant Refunds for Certain Chapter 11 Debtors
Part 2: Additional Implications for Cryptocurrency Companies in Bankruptcy
What Happens When a Cryptocurrency Platform Goes Bankrupt?
The Constitutionality of Increased Trustee Fees In Bankruptcy
Common Benefits Issues in Bankruptcy
Kasey Ingram and Rocco Debitetto on Bankruptcy and Compliance
Breaking Down the Latest Decision in the Purdue Pharma Case
The Legal Landscape of Make Whole Payments
Ingram and Debitetto on Bankruptcy and Compliance Programs
Nota Bene Podcast Episode 132: 2021 Business Bankruptcy Trends with Ori Katz
Straddle-Year Tax Debts in Bankruptcy: Does the King Get Paid First? [More with McGlinchey, Ep. 14]
Blakes Continuity Podcast: What to Expect When Insolvency Crosses the Border
Meritas Capability Webinar - Restructuring Insolvent Airlines in the Americas: A Look at LATAM and Developments with AeroMexico and Avianca
Bill on Bankruptcy: Big Time Lawyers Pricing Themselves Out
Bill on Bankruptcy: Delaware Garners Almost All Big Chapter 11s
Bill on Bankruptcy: Madoff Victims Rooting for Stanford Victory
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
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
In one of the most publicized terms for the U.S. Supreme Court, one June decision has not received the attention it deserves: Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company Inc. Truck upends decades of Chapter 11...more
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 various...more
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 around the country. In September...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
As previously discussed and anticipated in prior blog posts, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U.S. 464, 142 S.Ct. 1770, 213 L.Ed.2d 39 (2022), which struck down as unconstitutional the...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
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...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
Companies faced with numerous mass tort claims, such as asbestos claims, often seek bankruptcy protection. Reorganization plans may include § 524(g) channeling injunctions in which insurance assets are put into a trust to pay...more