On March 16, 2026, Judge Michael B. Kaplan of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey issued a closely watched letter opinion denying motions by the U.S. Trustee and an ad hoc cross‑holder group to dismiss or transfer the chapter 11 cases of Multi‑Color Corporation and its affiliates. Although the court candidly acknowledged discomfort with the debtors’ venue planning—conducting what it called a “gut check” that “does not sit right”—Judge Kaplan nevertheless concluded that venue in New…More

The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that there is a time limit—specifically, a “reasonable time” under Rule 60(c)(1)—for filing motions to set aside judgments as “void” under Rule 60(b)(4), even where the alleged voidness stems from lack of proper service or personal jurisdiction. In Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, the Court held that Rule 60’s reasonable-time requirement applies to motions attacking judgments for voidness and affirmed the Sixth Circuit’s decision upholding denial of relief because the motion…More

In Episode 22 of The Octus Download (available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music), hosts Jason Sanjana and Kevin Eckhardt interviewed the Honorable Michael B. Kaplan, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the District of New Jersey, who offered a candid, practitioner‑oriented discussion on how bankruptcy courts evaluate Chapter 11 cases in real time. Over the last few years, Judge Kaplan has presided over numerous high profile cases in the country including Rite Aid (as well as New Rite Aid), LTL Management,…More

If your holiday to‑do list includes lights, cocoa, and some year‑end legal news, here’s a little stocking stuffer for you. In a recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Thomas M. Horan dismissed a preference lawsuit tied to the Chapter 7 case of Christmas Tree Shops, LLC. Think of this decision as the court checking its list twice and finding the complaint a little light on pre-filing due diligence. Let’s unwrap the opinion…More

In 2024, the Supreme Court, in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204 (2024), held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize nonconsensual third-party releases in Chapter 11 reorganization plans, meaning affected creditors cannot be forced to release claims against non-debtors without their consent. The decision specifically overturned Purdue’s Chapter 11 Plan, which attempted to release the owners from liability, and the case was sent back to the lower court. The decision resolved a circuit split on the issue…More

Last week, the Trump administration and Congress proposed spending cuts that if enacted are likely to affect federally funded health insurance programs such as Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). These cuts could disrupt cash flow for already vulnerable health care providers, bringing their financial problems into sharper focus as government payor programs face budget reductions. This may lead to increased rates of insolvency among health care institutions, particularly those that rely heavily on reimbursement from such programs. And that…More

The restructuring industry held its proverbial breath following the Supreme Court’s decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., which invalidated the nonconsensual third-party release in the debtors’ plan.  While various courts continue to interpret the Purdue Pharma decision, New Jersey Bankruptcy Courts (the “Bankruptcy Court”) appear unified in allowing consensual third-party releases and finding that opt-out provisions constitute a consensual release, as most recently affirmed in the BowFlex case.[1]  Major companies and their boards, with the advice of counsel and advisors,…More

It has been approximately two months since the highly anticipated Supreme Court decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., and it is already making a significant impact in bankruptcies around the country.  In September 2019, Purdue Pharma L.P. and 23 affiliated debtors filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy to provide a breathing spell from the mounting pressure arising from opioid litigation.  The Purdue Pharma debtors were subjected to a growing number of class action lawsuits stemming from Purdue Pharma’s marketing and sale…More

Pursuant to the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court’s (the “Court”) annual rule making cycle, the Court implemented various changes to the New Jersey Local Rules and Local Forms, which became effective on August 1, 2024.[1]              Of particular note, the Court has released an entirely new set of Chapter 11 Complex Case Procedures.  The release of these new Complex Case Procedures is well-timed given the increase in large chapter 11 filings in New Jersey over the last few years.  The full new…More

As previously discussed and anticipated in prior blog posts,[1] the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U.S. 464, 142 S.Ct. 1770, 213 L.Ed.2d 39 (2022), which struck down as unconstitutional the United States Trustee System Fund (Pub. L. 115-72, Div. B, 131 Stat. 1229) (the “2017 Act”) on the basis that the disparate treatment between the fees charged under the U.S. Trustee System[2] and the fees charged in the six Bankruptcy Administrator Districts violated the uniformity…More