A three-judge panel for the Michigan Court of Appeals held last month that receivers directing insolvent marijuana companies can reject burdensome leases and disregard contract provisions that could lead to widespread defaults.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Purdue, which held that nonconsensual third-party releases are impermissible under the Bankruptcy Code, bankruptcy judges across multiple jurisdictions have been grappling with what constitutes a “consensual” release. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204 (2024). This article analyzes how different judges have defined “consent” and provides guidance on best practices for structuring third-party releases.
The Fourth Circuit’s opinion focused on answering the core question presented — whether jurisdiction is determined by statute, rather than by a debtor’s financial condition. It reasoned that since the Constitution grants Article III power over “all cases arising under the laws of the United States” and the Bankruptcy Code is a law under the United States, the petition to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is clearly within the judicial ambit of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that a bankruptcy court’s decision to lift the automatic stay of pending litigation imposed by the Bankruptcy Code is a final, appealable order. But what if a bankruptcy court lifts the stay and later reimposes it? Is the latter order also immediately appealable, or is it considered interlocutory?
In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey subordinated a 502(h) claim to prevent the claimant from being paid in full prior to investors defrauded by the debtors’ pre-petition operation of a Ponzi scheme. In its decision, the court maintained that the equitable powers of bankruptcy courts were sufficiently broad to subordinate a claim on equitable grounds under Section 510(c) and that there is nothing in the Bankruptcy Code that prevents a court from so doing.
The United Arab Emirates is launching a specialized federal bankruptcy court to streamline insolvency cases, a step that could increase investor confidence, reduce cross-emirate confusion, and create opportunities for legal and financial professionals.
In a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit case, the court considered whether a bankruptcy court had the authority to retroactively annul the automatic stay under circumstances where the debtor affirmatively participated in an arbitration but subsequently argued that enforcement of the arbitration award against him should be subject to the automatic stay when he did not like the outcome.
As personal injury and bankruptcy law increasingly intersect, attorneys must navigate a complex legal landscape. Nowhere is this more apparent than in cases involving financially distressed individuals with pending personal injury claims, or tort plaintiffs pursuing recovery against bankrupt defendants. This article highlights key questions and considerations attorneys should understand when navigating these types of cases.
Courts continue to grapple with issues impacting the rights of debtors, creditors and insurers in Chapter 11 cases filed by companies facing mass tort liabilities. This article summarizes key takeaways from significant cases such as Red River Talc and Boy Scouts of America (BSA).
A bankruptcy judge, his law clerk and two law students challenged this author’s opinion piece entitled “Inconvenient Bankruptcy Appeals” from the December 2024 issue of The Bankruptcy Strategist that district courts and Bankruptcy Appellate Panels have been rigidly limiting appellate review of interlocutory bankruptcy court orders as a matter of convenience. The critics argue instead that these courts consistently apply appropriate statutory and decisional standards when they decline appellate review, striving to “get it right.” A quick reply follows.
