Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Second Circuit Allows Asbestos Claims to Proceed Against Pfizer
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.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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 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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
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.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
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.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.