A bankruptcy court properly held that derivative claims based on "piercing the corporate veil theory of liability [were] released under" a confirmed reorganization plan, but that direct "claims for negligent undertaking" were not released and "could be asserted" in state court against the debtors' equity sponsors (Sponsors).
Delaware District Court Could Guide Supreme Court Purdue Pharma Decision
A bankruptcy court properly held that derivative claims based on "piercing the corporate veil theory of liability [were] released under" a confirmed reorganization plan, but that direct "claims for negligent undertaking" were not released and "could be asserted" in state court against the debtors' equity sponsors.
By
Michael L. Cook
This premium content is locked for The Bankruptcy Strategist subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Bankruptcy Strategist
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
