Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Purdue Pharma has put an end to the use of permanent plan injunctions in the form of nonconsensual third-party releases as a reorganizational tool in Chapter 11, at least for now. What was not addressed by the Supreme Court in Purdue Pharma is the propriety of temporary injunctions that halt third-party litigation pending formulation of a Chapter 11 plan (typically a plan that would contain nonconsensual third-party releases). At the outset of a Chapter 11 case, debtors often seek entry of a preliminary injunction pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code extending the automatic stay to and temporarily enjoining litigation against nondebtors. Commonly referred to by bankruptcy practitioners and courts as a "105(a) injunction", this relief is particularly prevalent in cases, like Purdue Pharma, involving multi-party, mass tort litigation where the debtor and certain nondebtors may be co-defendants in prepetition litigation with shared insurance, defenses, evidence and liability.
The rationale for a 105(a) injunction is to stay litigation that could impede the debtor's reorganization such as by depleting insurance assets, increasing estate liability through indemnification and contribution claims, or distracting debtor principals from attending to their responsibilities in Chapter 11 and formulating a plan. Underpinning most every request for a 105(a) injunction, and particularly in the mass tort bankruptcy context, is the debtor's primary objective of stopping litigation in multiple forums in favor of addressing claimants' claims in a single forum (the bankruptcy court) pending an eventual permanent injunction under a plan which includes third-party releases in favor of the nondebtor defendants and/or co-obligors. The breathing spell afforded by a 105(a) injunction enables creditors to analyze whether they would support an eventual plan containing third-party releases.
Until now, a successful reorganization assumed the debtor could confirm a plan with nondebtor releases and injunctions based on less than full creditor consensus. Now that nonconsensual releases in Chapter 11 plans are no longer permitted, will debtors have a more difficult time obtaining a 105(a) injunction, even if only pending confirmation of a plan of reorganization?
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
A Q&A with conference speaker Ryan Phelan, a partner at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun and founder and moderator of legal blog PatentNext, to discuss how courts and jurisdictions are handling novel technologies, the copyrightability of AI-assisted art, and more.
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.