When Is Content of Bankruptcy Bar Date Notice Sufficient?
Situations where a debtor places a product into the stream of commerce, which over time causes harm to those exposed, gives rise to questions such as when and whether a claim arises, and further how do you get proper notice to those persons so that a claims bar date will be binding?
May 06, 2021 at 01:18 PM
9 minute read
One of the most important, if not the most important Chapter 11 benefit for a reorganized debtor is the discharge of claims under Section 1141 of the Bankruptcy Code. The discharge provides the debtor with the proverbial fresh start free of legacy liabilities which caused the financial distress in the first place. In cases involving retailers, single asset real estate and other non-manufacturing debtors, the class of claims impacted by the discharge provisions is relatively straight forward and easy to identify. However, situations where a debtor places a product into the stream of commerce, which over time causes harm to those exposed, gives rise to questions such as when and whether a claim arises, and further how do you get proper notice to those persons so that a claims bar date will be binding? It is the later issue that was recently addressed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which examined whether the content of a debtor's bar date notice satisfied due process, so as to discharge unknown litigation creditors' claims against the company after confirmation of the debtor's chapter 11 plan of reorganization. See, Sweeney v. Alcon Laboratories, Case No. 20-2066 (3d. Cir. April 20, 2021).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDebtor-Owner Allowed to Modify Mortgage in Bankruptcy Even if Debtor Is Not Obligor Under the Mortgage Loan
7 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How Legal Aid and Tech Collaboration Can Bridge the Justice Gap
- 2The Rise of AI-Generated Deepfakes: A New Cybersecurity Threat for Law Firms
- 3Litigation Leaders: Labaton’s Eric Belfi on Running Case Investigation, Analysis and Evaluation In-House
- 4Spoliation Sanctions
- 5At FDA, Flavored Vape Products Go Up In Smoke
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250