United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, May 30, 2019

PENNSYLVANIA – The defendant Johnson & Johnson (J&J), in a topic that has been extensively covered by the Asbestos Case Tracker, indicated in its notice of removal that this case is one of many in the United States which involve claims concerning personal injuries and deaths allegedly caused by J&J’s cosmetic talc. J&J’s motion further indicates that the “sole supplier” of the talc which the defendant used in its product, filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11.

United States District Court, C.D. California, May 21, 2019

Following W.R. Grace’s filing for bankruptcy in April 2001, a series of cases were filed against Maryland Casualty, which was the company’s primary general liability insurer from 1962 to 1973. Specifically, the twenty-nine plaintiffs in this matter filed a lawsuit relating to their diagnosis of asbestosis, in the District Court of Montana in November 2001. The plaintiffs originally named the State of Montana only. Maryland Casualty was named in March 2002. Additionally, seven of the twenty-nine plaintiffs had previously filed suit against Maryland Casualty, in June 2001.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.

In In re Filene’s Basement, LLC,¹ the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware considered the rejection damages a landlord claimant was entitled to pursuant to Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code after the debtor rejected its lease as part of its reorganization plan.

Bankruptcy courts appear to be increasingly sending state law claims to the district court for final review, as illustrated by a recent decision from the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Texas. In Gomez v. Lone Star National Bank (In re Saenz), Jose Gomez financed his acquisition of a restaurant from Humberto Saenz. When the restaurant failed, Gomez sued his lender and Saenz on various claims, but Saenz filed for bankruptcy protection. The lender then moved for summary judgment against Gomez’s claims for common-law fraud and negligence.