Fulltext Search
3M tried to resolve its PFAS liability to water suppliers for $12.5 BILLION and almost 1/2 the States (including MA) are objecting. What's next?

In May I wrote about a manufacturer of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) excused from the PFAS Multi-District Litigation in South Carolina because its PFAS-related liabilities might exceed its assets which is something for a Federal Bankruptcy Court to sort out.  At the time I worried that this was only one of many PFAS-related bankruptcies we would be seeing

USA, Environment & Climate Change, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Mintz, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Congress
Surprising no one, those pursued to pay for PFAS contamination are buckling under the weight of those claims. What's next?

Hundreds and hundreds of claims for personal injury and property damage associated with PFAS contamination have been accumulating in the courtroom of a Federal Judge in South Carolina. A little over four years ago the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determined that Federal claims that Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) containing PFAS used to fight fires had contaminated drinking water had enough in common that they should all be sent to Federal Judge Gergel in South Carolina for disposition.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Mintz, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Congress
So the U.S. Supreme Court Resolved a Circuit Split Concerning Trademark Licenses, Now What?

In Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a question that vexed the lower courts and resulted in a circuit split: does the rejection by a debtor-licensor of a trademark license agreement terminate the licensee’s rights under the rejected license?

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Trademarks, Dechert LLP, Debtor, Supreme Court of the United States