“I have an opening statement that I give at the beginning of every mediation, and it goes like this”:

• “I don’t have a lot of rules but I have one firm rule and that is nobody uses the ‘F’ word—“final offer.”

“And it’s very true. If I had listened to the parties in the Detroit bankruptcy when they said, ‘This is our final offer,’ and banged their laptops shut, Detroit would still be in bankruptcy. So ignore the ‘F’ word.”

We have written many times over the past few years about how the bankruptcy courts are off-limits to state-legalized cannabis businesses. This past year brought no new relief to the cannabis industry, and the doors to the bankruptcy courts remain shut. Are the other federal courts off-limits as well? A recent district court decision from the Southern District of California sheds some light on this issue, and indicates that the district courts are at least partially open to participants in legal cannabis businesses.

Factual Background

In a December 16, 2021, decision,¹ Judge Colleen McMahon of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York reversed the bankruptcy court order confirming the Chapter 11 plan of Purdue Pharma, L.P.

One year ago when the German out-of-court restructuring regime, StaRUG, came into force, people hoped for it to be the beginning of a new viable rescue culture in Germany.

Whilst generally not public, it appears there have been substantially more professional articles covering StaRUG than cases themselves (believed to be around 10-20 for the year).

Every now and then, (i) something is blatantly obvious, but (ii) those in charge insist that what seems obvious is actually false. Such a disconnect breeds distrust.

That’s precisely what exists in our bankruptcy system. The U.S. Constitution requires that bankruptcy laws be “uniform . . . throughout the United States”:

There has been much discussion concerning the recent district court appellate decision in Purdue Pharma. See In re Purdue Pharma, Case No. 21 cv 7532 (Master Case), 2021 WL 5979108 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021). We have been tracking developments relating to Purdue Pharma and issues concerning third-party releases: Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?

The opinion is from In re The Diocese of Buffalo, N.Y., Case No. 20-10322, Western New York Bankruptcy Court (entered December 27, 2021, Doc. 1487).

The Diocese of Buffalo asks the Bankruptcy Court to refer its Chapter 11 case and related adversary proceedings to mandatory global mediation–it does so twice. Its first request is denied. It’s second is granted . . . but with limitations.

This blog entry will be the first in a new, ongoing series of entries in the “Bankruptcy Protector” that will attempt to familiarize new attorneys and non-bankruptcy practitioners with the basic concepts of bankruptcy law of which all lawyers should be aware.

A recent Fifth Circuit decision released on December 7 sends a clear message to those seeking to challenge a trustee’s litigation funding agreement: you’d better be on solid ground when it comes to “standing.”

In the five-page opinion authored by Judge Jacques L. Weiner, Jr., the court found that the appellant-debtor in In re Dean lacked standing to challenge a funding agreement approved by a Texas Bankruptcy Court. The Fifth Circuit found that the debtor was not “directly, adversely, and financially impacted” by the funding agreement or the bankruptcy court’s order.

Welcome to the first edition of Restructuring Watch from the Akin Gump financial restructuring team in London. These editions will provide short and accessible updates on key legal developments in the European restructuring and insolvency world.