Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In September 2004, the Quigley Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer, filed for Chapter 11 relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, and advised the court in its first-day filings that it intended on filing a pre-negotiated Chapter 11 plan as soon as practicable that would establish a trust and provide for channeling injunctions in favor of, among others, Pfizer, a non-debtor third party, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. ' 524. Some parties-in-interest, including an ad-hoc committee of tort claimants that had organized and appeared early in the bankruptcy case, viewed Quigley's bankruptcy filing as a carefully orchestrated scheme by Quigley to shield its non-debtor parent from substantial exposure.
Fast-forward almost eight years to April 10, 2012, when the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, agreeing with the district court and disagreeing with the Quigley bankruptcy court, concluded that in fact the channeling injunction issued in favor of Pfizer did not bar the commencement or continuation of certain asbestos actions against Pfizer. This article addresses issues that the Second Circuit considered in reaching its conclusion, including: 1) whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enjoin the asbestos actions from going forward in light of the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Stern v. Marshall and under the Bankruptcy Code in general; and 2) whether the asbestos actions in question fell within the scope of the channeling injunction.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
 
  On Aug. 9, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul introduced New York's inaugural comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. In sum, the plan aims to update government networks, bolster county-level digital defenses, and regulate critical infrastructure.
 
  The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
 
  When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
 
  Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.