Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bankruptcy and restructuring attorneys Nancy A. Mitchell, Maria J. DiConza, and Matthew Hinker have joined the New York office of O’Melveny & Myers LLP. Ms. Mitchell and Ms. DiConza will join as partners and Mr. Hinker as counsel. All three previously practiced together at Greenberg Traurig, where Ms. Mitchell was co-chair of the firm’s Global Restructuring and Bankruptcy practice and co-managing shareholder of the New York office. Ms. DiConza, brings more than 20 years of experience in complex financial restructuring and debtor and lender/creditor representations across industries including food services, municipal, healthcare, manufacturing, energy, financial services, and for-profit education. Mr. Hinker focuses his practice on complex Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, adversary proceeding litigation, and other insolvency-related matters.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Landmines In Bankruptcy Appellate Practice, Part III
By Michael L. Cook
When courts have made important exceptions in the past year, they have either added a gloss on the Judicial Code, corrected lawyers’ errors, filled in statutory gaps, or clarified the relevant statutory language.
A Strategic Guide for Lenders to Navigate Anticipated Distressed Loan Fallout
By Jay Steinman and Karina Leiter
The steps outlined in this article offer a strategic guide for lenders, empowering them to navigate the complexities of loan workouts and enforcement actions with resilience and foresight.
Third Circuit: Bankruptcy Code Mandates Appointment of Examiner In Chapter 11 Cases
By Francis J. Lawall and Brenden S. Dahrouge
The Third Circuit recently held in 'In re FTX Trading' that the plain text of Section 1104(c)(2) mandates the appointment of an examiner under the specified conditions set forth. As a result, the FTX decision will carry significant implications for large and medium-sized bankruptcy cases.
By Lawrence J. Kotler and Ryan Spengler
The Central District of California court held that a bankruptcy court’s administration of cannabis-related state court claims against a debtor’s estate is not a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.