Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
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?