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?

On May 7, 2021, we issued a legal alert regarding third-party releases as part of the plan of reorganization in the Perdue Pharma case. [Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?] The order confirming that plan was appealed and our subsequent legal alert dated December 21, 2021 discussed the decision by Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S.

On May 7, 2021, we issued a client alert regarding the Perdue Pharma case and the possibility that the bankruptcy case could include a release of individual non-debtor members of the Sackler family. At that time, a plan which contained terms that would effectively extend the automatic stay protections was confirmed by Judge Robert D. Drain, who presided over the bankruptcy case in the Southern District of New York.

Each day creditors across the globe receive the bad news that a customer is not paying its debts or is otherwise insolvent. Israeli creditors, whether lenders or vendors, are no exception. Knowing what to do can limit exposure and maximize recovery of debts owed by the insolvent party.

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

The automatic stay provided under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code is an injunction, arising when a bankruptcy case is filed, which prevents all proceedings or actions against the debtor or the property of the estate without court permission - the so-called “lifting of the stay”.[1]

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.