Category: Featured

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. attorney Alan B. Epstein has been featured on the front page of a recent issue of the Legal Intelligencer for coverage of a high-profile defamation lawsuit filed by the anthropologist and former Penn Museum curator Janet Monge against the University of Pennsylvania and some 20+ other defendants. Monge was the subject of media reports alleging she mishandled the remains of 1985 MOVE bombing victims.

Epstein represents Monge, and he is quoted extensively in the story. The case was recently removed to Federal Court.

Legal Intelligencer 080322

Epstein concentrates his practice in civil litigation representation in the areas of employment rights, civil rights and constitutional torts and the provision of transactional advice in all areas of corporate governance, including personalized advice to corporate officers, boards and board members regarding adherence to state and federal regulations. He is frequently called upon to provide transactional advice to, negotiate employment contracts and severance agreements on behalf of, and litigate matters for, corporate entities, corporate officers and directors, and licensed professionals (and their entities), including lawyers, doctors, bankers, accountants, pharmacists and architects, as well as insurance, real estate and security brokers.

Epstein has litigated complex claims before courts throughout the United States and has been admitted to practice in cases pending before numerous state and federal trial and appellate courts and administrative agencies in Pennsylvania, California, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Washington as well as the United States Supreme Court. He is a frequent lecturer in his areas of concentration across the United States, and has served as an expert witness in state and federal courts regarding employment law and the professional and ethical responsibilities of lawyers.

He is a Fellow in the prestigious international College of Labor and Employment Lawyers and has served on its Board of Governors as an officer (Secretary, Treasurer, Vice President and then President) since 2011. He continues to serve on the College’s Board as a Past President of that organization.  He holds an AV rating from Martindale Hubbell™, has been named as one of the Best Lawyers in America™ in the publication of that name for more than 10 years. He has been awarded Lifetime Achievement Awards by the Philadelphia’s The Legal Intelligencer and Marquis Who’s Who. He has been named a top 100 Superlawyer™ in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. He has served as a volunteer mentor and Panel Coordinator for the Employment Litigation Panel of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and as a national leader and Inn President in the American Inns of Court movement.

In the context of significant litigation in the employment law area, Epstein is well known for his participation in high-profile litigation for individuals and corporate entities (including his representation of a young, HIV-positive attorney against a prestigious Philadelphia law firm that received national attention because of the daily televising of the trial by Court TV and CNN and the award-winning film “Philadelphia” starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington) and for his frequent representation of local and national sports figures, broadcast personalities, and officers and directors of large national corporations.

Epstein was also the founder and President/CEO of JUDICATE, The National Private Court System, a publicly held company coordinating private dispute resolution services through approximately 700 former judges throughout the United States and its territories. In the area of alternative dispute resolution, he has additionally lectured and served as a mediator and arbitrator by private appointment and through certification by state and federal courts.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

0

Prominent local legal news publication The Philadelphia Lawyer, published by the Philadelphia Bar Association, has profiled Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. attorney Stanley P. Jaskiewicz in its Summer 2022 issue. In the article, Jaskiewicz explains what being a “Philadelphia lawyer” means to him, and mentioned some of the milestones that have defined him as one.

As a Member in the Corporate Law Group, Stanley P. Jaskiewicz assists and advises privately-held and family-held businesses on a wide range of legal matters, including contracts law, secured lending and negotiated acquisitions, Internet and technology law, business matters arising in the practice of medicine, corporate governance, intellectual property, regulatory counseling, fine arts law and foreign law. Mr. Jaskiewicz was elected by his peers as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer for 17 consecutive years, 2006 through 2022, in the practice areas of Corporate/Securities Law, Closely Held Businesses and Mergers and Acquisitions. He has also received an AV Preeminent rating by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating. In 2021, Mr. Jaskiewicz was appointed to the American Bar Association’s Voice of Experience Board.

Lawyer

0

On July 12, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new guidance to assure that the measures employers implement to protect their employees from Covid-19 comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, particularly the Americans With Disabilities Act. In the new guidelines the EEOC makes clear that, going forward, employers will need to assess whether current pandemic circumstances and individual workplace circumstances justify viral screening testing of employees to prevent workplace transmission of Covid-19. In other words, an employer may require an employee to submit to Covid-19 testing if the employer can show testing is job-related and consistent with business necessity.
In making the decision whether or not to require Covid-19 testing, the EEOC suggests that employers consider the level of community transmission, the vaccination status of employees, the accuracy and speed of processing for different types of Covid-19 viral tests, the degree to which breakthrough infections are possible for employees who are “up to date” on vaccinations, the ease of transmissibility of the current variant(s), the possible severity of illness from the current variant, what types of contacts employees may have with others in the workplace or elsewhere that they are required to work (e.g., working with medically vulnerable individuals), and the potential impact on operations if an employee enters the workplace with Covid-19. The EEOC also suggests that employers check the latest guidance from the CDC, FDA and state and local health authorities to determine whether screening testing is appropriate for their employees.
As a practical matter, Employers can require employees who are coming into a worksite to be tested if they have Covid-19 symptoms, have been diagnosed with Covid-19, or have been exposed to someone who has been diagnosed with Covid-19. If an employee tests positive, they can exclude that employee from the workplace during the mandatory quarantine. Employers can also require that any employee who is returning to the workplace after having been diagnosed with Covid-19 provide a doctor’s note or a negative Covid-19 test before they can return to the workplace.
Employers can also require applicants to produce a negative Covid-19 test as long as the requirement is applied consistently for all applicants who will work in the employer’s workplace.
If you need assistance creating a Covid-19 testing policy for your business, or if you have any questions regarding these mandates, please contact Nancy Abrams at nabrams@sgrvlaw.com or Jennifer Myers Chalal at jchalal@sgrvlaw.com.
0

Matthew R. Shindell, a member of Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci’s Commercial Litigation, Health Care Law & Litigation and Insurance Coverage & Casualty Litigation Groups, has been featured in a recent Pennsylvania Record article.

Shindell, along with SGRV associate Min-Sun Kim, were featured following an involvement in a case regarding prior consent for the care, embalming, and interment of the recently deceased.

The case is ongoing, with Shindell and Kim acting as defense.

Shindell’s practice primarily concentrates on the defense of medical malpractice claims against physicians, nurses, medical practice groups, hospitals, long-term care facilities and community clinics. Mr Shindell also defends complex liability claims involving consumer products and industrial equipment. In addition, he routinely handles complex commercial litigation cases. He regularly writes articles for legal, consumer and trade publications on topics pertaining to his areas of practice.

Min-Sun Kim is an Associate in the firm’s Commercial Litigation, Insurance & Casualty Litigation, and Health Care Law & Litigation Groups. Her practice includes insurance and casualty litigation, insurance coverage matters, and matters involving the defense of health care institutions including nursing homes and other assisted living facilities and their management companies.

pennrecord-com-stories-628655104-crozer-health-defendants-say-no-legal-support-for-man-s-improper-embalming-and-cremation-claims
0

Alan B. Epstein, Chair of the Employment Law Group at the Philadelphia-based law firm of Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. (SGRV), has been selected to the Lawdragon™ Hall of Fame, the firm has announced. The distinction, whose recent members include the late U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, and local, leading luminaries, including attorney Tom Kline, recognizes past members of the Lawdragon 500 and other outstanding lawyers who have made remarkable contributions as leaders, litigators, dealmakers, power brokers, judges and innovators.

The Lawdragon™ Hall of Fame listings are chosen through a thorough selection process of the nation’s greatest corporate litigators, plaintiff powerhouses, and innovators with unsurpassed dedication to their legal practice. Only the best of the best are given the honor of a place in the Hall of Fame. While the list is ever growing since its creation in 2015, rarely do more than 100 lawyers nationwide annually receive the accolade of a Hall of Fame position.

In addition to his Hall of Fame selection, Mr. Epstein was selected as a 2022 Lawdragon™ 500 Leading Plaintiff Employment & Civil Rights Lawyer. Epstein has been selected for this honor for the past five years, since the category was created in 2018. The 500 honorees are chosen in Lawdragon™’s research-driven, journalistic process that vets the views of peers and competitors, and recognizes large wins. Practitioners who were recognized have been securing positive results for workers for 10 years to more than 50 years. Epstein was one of only 11 Philadelphia lawyers chosen for this nationwide distinction. He also has in the past been selected by Lawdragon™ as one of the nation’s Leading Lawyers and also as a Lawdragon™ Leading Litigation Lawyer.

“Alan continues to push the boundaries of what it means to be an Employment and Civil Rights attorney. His accolades have raised our firm to the next level,” noted SGRV Chairman Paul R. Rosen.

SGRV Shareholder and Director George M. Vinci Jr. added that “Alan’s dedication to his craft is an inspiration for us all. Few things can make me more proud than to have him as a member of SGRV.”

Epstein concentrates his practice in civil litigation representation in the areas of employment rights, civil rights and constitutional torts and the provision of transactional advice in all areas of corporate governance, including personalized advice to corporate officers, boards and board members regarding adherence to state and federal regulations. He is frequently called upon to provide transactional advice to, negotiate employment contracts and severance agreements on behalf of, and litigate matters for, corporate entities, corporate officers and directors, and licensed professionals (and their entities), including lawyers, doctors, bankers, accountants, pharmacists and architects, as well as insurance, real estate and security brokers.

Epstein has litigated complex claims before courts throughout the United States and has been admitted to practice in cases pending before numerous state and federal trial and appellate courts and administrative agencies in Pennsylvania, California, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Washington as well as the United States Supreme Court. He is a frequent lecturer in his areas of concentration across the United States, and has served as an expert witness in state and federal courts regarding employment law and the professional and ethical responsibilities of lawyers.

He is a Fellow in the prestigious international College of Labor and Employment Lawyers and has served on its Board of Governors as an officer (Secretary, Treasurer, Vice President and then President) since 2011. He continues to serve on the College’s Board as a Past President of that organization.  He holds an AV rating from Martindale Hubbell™, has been named as one of the Best Lawyers in America™ in the publication of that name for more than 10 years. He has been awarded Lifetime Achievement Awards by the Philadelphia’s The Legal Intelligencer and Marquis Who’s Who. He has been named a top 100 Superlawyer™ in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. He has served as a volunteer mentor and Panel Coordinator for the Employment Litigation Panel of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and as a national leader and Inn President in the American Inns of Court movement.

In the context of significant litigation in the employment law area, Epstein is well known for his participation in high-profile litigation for individuals and corporate entities (including his representation of a young, HIV-positive attorney against a prestigious Philadelphia law firm that received national attention because of the daily televising of the trial by Court TV and CNN and the award-winning film “Philadelphia” starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington) and for his frequent representation of local and national sports figures, broadcast personalities, and officers and directors of large national corporations.

Epstein was also the founder and President/CEO of JUDICATE, The National Private Court System, a publicly held company coordinating private dispute resolution services through approximately 700 former judges throughout the United States and its territories. In the area of alternative dispute resolution, he has additionally lectured and served as a mediator and arbitrator by private appointment and through certification by state and federal courts.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

0

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. distinguished attorney Stanley P. Jaskiewicz recently had a featured article published by the American Bar Association’s Voice of Experience publication.

SGRV attorney Stanley P. Jaskiewicz has been appointed to serve on the American Bar Association’s Voice of Experience Board for the 2021-22 bar year.

Voice of Experience (VOE) is the Senior Lawyers Division’s monthly e-newsletter. Each issue covers a broad range of topic areas, such as lifestyle, physical and mental health, financial well-being, practice management, technology, and more.

The magazine’s main audience is senior attorneys specializing in any area of law. It publishes articles on topics of interest for these lawyers, along with those related to business planning and management, politics, history, culture, travel, health, and the arts. Each article offers practical advice to lawyers later in their careers or those who’ve retired or are semi-retired.

In this issue, Mr. Jaskiewicz delves into the in’s and out’s of navigating the “fine print” present in both the professional and the mundane world.

Beware-the-Killer-Footnotes
0

In our society, ownership usually beats other claims to property.

As lawyers learn in first year Property class, “a thief can’t convey good title.”

But in business, sometimes ownership doesn’t matter.

In one common situation, an undisputed owner will lose its property, to someone it may never have known about.

How can this happen? More importantly, as a business owner, how can you avoid it?

This risk arises when property is consigned to another firm, rather than sold.

Consignment allows a seller to obtain possession of property for resale, without having to pay for it.

Sellers sometimes prefer consignment, because of the naïve perception that retaining title is safer than selling to a customer with less than stellar credit – a “poor man’s” form of security, without the legal fees.

I suspect that most people think of pawn shops and upscale resale boutiques when they hear “consignment”.

However, even before the Pandemic’s challenges, some businesses relied on consignments as a way to reduce their firm’s cash flow needs.

For example, I worked with one client that financed inventory acquisition for its manufacturing process by accepting it on consignment, rather than purchasing it.

Rather than pay upfront for inventory, such firms pay for it only as it is used, after they have the cash from a sale.\

This transfers the carrying costs and risk of financing, from an intermediate buyer, to the original seller.

If the intermediate seller doesn’t find a buyer, the original seller – which still owns the inventory – can, in theory, take it back, and try to sell it elsewhere.

But that takes time and money, including shipping costs.

As a legal matter, firms supplying inventory to such firms must understand that commercial rules in all states require extremely specific steps to protect the owner’s interest.

If the owner of the property doesn’t follow the procedures of the Uniform Commercial Code on consignments, secured creditors of the intermediate buyer will have a better claim to the inventory than its owner.

In simple terms, the intermediate buyer’s lender can foreclose on inventory that its buyer doesn’t own, as illogical as that seems.

The owner that supplied it to the buyer can complain, but will lose – unless it took two simple steps before shipping the inventory:

  • File a UCC-1 Financing Statement against the recipient of the inventory (the “consignee”, in legal jargon), identifying the transaction as a “consignment” (a check box on the form). The consignee no longer must sign the UCC-1, but you, as supplier of the goods, should demand that it sign an “authorization” for you to file against the consignee that receives your goods.
  • Notify the recipient’s secured creditors, in writing, that the consignee will receive your inventory. (You will have to pay for a public records search to identify them.)

Again, you must do both of these, before the recipient receives any inventory, to protect your ownership of your consigned goods.

If you miss a detail, the law makes your ownership of the consigned inventory irrelevant.

Even though the recipient hasn’t paid you for it – remember, you shipped on consignment – your ownership is legally meaningless. The recipient’s creditors can seize that inventory on foreclosure to satisfy the recipient’s debt, without any obligation to pay you for them, even though you were (not “are”) owner of those goods.

You still have a claim against the recipient to recover the goods’ value, but good luck.

If the recipient’s lender has begun a foreclosure, you have to decide whether suing for the value of the inventory you “owned” (again, past tense) would just be throwing good money after bad.

If all of this sounds complex, congratulations! You are correct – secured credit involving consigned goods is not something anyone should try at home.

As a practical matter, don’t let a lender force you to incur significant legal fees, by encouraging you to be able to borrow more, by including consigned goods in your borrowing base.

The lender may believe – perhaps sincerely, but wrongly – that it is as easy as filing a UCC-1.

In fact, you will probably have to pay your lender’s additional legal fees under the typical “borrower pays all lender expenses” provision of your loan agreement.

Instead, consult with counsel to understand the legal cost of consigning inventory, rather than selling it. Then balance that expense against the benefit of the additional borrowing availability from such added collateral, and the carrying cost of continuing to own those consigned goods until the recipient actually sells them, and can pay you for them.

In other words, there is a reason most boilerplate asset-based loan agreements exclude consigned goods in the possession of a third party (the recipient of the goods) from the consignor’s borrowing base.

A typical lender may see inventory onsite, without realizing that its borrower does not own it (and can’t use it as collateral).

The business moral of the story is simple: call your counsel before incurring costs on a new business arrangement, whether as a supplier or lender.

If you don’t, the cliché, “you snooze, you lose” will become “you own, you lose” – and you will pay your counsel for the privilege of doing so.

For further information on this issue, or on writing your form agreements to protect your business and assets in everyday transactions, please contact Stanley Jaskiewicz (https://www.sgrvlaw.com/attorney/stanley-p-jaskiewicz/) at 215-241-8866, or sjaskiewicz@sgrvlaw.com for a no-cost initial consultation.

0

Effective April 1, 2022, certain dollar amounts will be adjusted under the Bankruptcy Code to reflect the changes in the Consumer Price Index. In many instances, these adjustments are very important as they can make a difference between whether a Debtor can preserve its assets or not. Some of the changes are as follows:

Pursuant to 11 USC Section 522: under 522(d)(1), the aggregate amount which a debtor can exempt in value of its residence has increased from $25,150 to $27,900; under 522(d)(2), the aggregate amount which each debtor can exempt in a motor vehicle has increased from $4,000 to $4,450; under 522(d)(3), the aggregate amount a debtor can exempt in household goods furnishings, etc. has increased from $13,400 to $14,875; under 522(d)(4), the aggregate amount a debtor can exempt in jewelry has increased from $1,700 to $1,875; under 522(d)(5), the aggregate amount a debtor can exempt in any property of $1,325, plus up to $12,575 of any unused portion of allowed exemption of the residence under (d)(1) has increased to $1,475 and $13,950 respectively; under 522(d)(6), the aggregate amount which a debtor can exempt for tools of a trade, books, etc. has increased from $2,525 to $2,800; under 522(d)(8), the aggregate amount which a debtor can exempt for accrued dividend or interest or loan value in any unmatured life insurance contract has increased from $13,400 to $14,875; and under 522(d)(11)(D), the aggregate amount of debtor’s interest on account of personal bodily injury has increased from $25,150 to $27,900.

Further, other Bankruptcy Code Sections have been adjusted as follows: the maximum aggregate value of assets of the debtor in an individual retirement account has increased from $1,362,800 to $1,512,350 (Section 522(n)); the state homestead exemption, limit for interest acquired less than or equal to 1,215 days before filing has increased from $170,350 to $189,050 (Section 522(p)); and the state homestead exemption, limit under certain circumstances has also increased from $170,350 to $189,050 (Section 522(q)).

Finally, under Chapter 13 cases, some of the adjustments are as follows: under Sections 1322 (b) and (d), each time $750 appears, the sum has been adjusted to $825; and under Section 1326 (b)(3) the payments to a Chapter 7 trustee has been adjusted to a flat $25 only.

Again, please note that the above represents a non-exclusive list of adjustments which become effective as of April 1, 2022. To discuss these adjustments or any other issues regarding creditors rights and bankruptcy, please contact Leslie Beth Baskin, Esquire at lbaskin@sgrvlaw.com or 215-241-8926.

0

Delaware Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey issued a 103 page opinion in In re Mallinckrodt PLC., Case No. 20-12522-JTD (Bankr. D.Del. Feb.3, 2022, Docket #6347) wherein he confirmed a Chapter 11 Plan which included non-consensual third-party releases and applied the Third Circuit position as articulated in Millenium Lab Holding II, LLC, 945 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 2019).
Mallinckrodt (“Debtor”) filed for Bankruptcy in October 2020 having approximately $5.3 billion in debt in order to settle the multitude of lawsuits brought by local and state governments and private citizens claiming that it had inappropriately and deceptively marketed opioids. Debtor was in the global pharmaceutical industry and manufactured and sold pharmaceutical products including opioids. On February 3, 2022, the Chapter 11 was confirmed over objections of a few creditors. In confirming the Plan, the Court acknowledged that it did not follow the reasoning in recent Second and Fourth Circuit decisions respectively in In re Perdue Pharma, L.P. 2021 WL 5979108 (SDNY De. 16 2021) or Mahwah Bergen Retail Group, Inc.(fka  Ascena Retail Group, Inc). but instead applied the Third Circuit standards.
The Plan provided four different types of releases which included: (a) releases made by the Debtors; (b) releases made by non-debtor third parties where certain claimants were given a chance to “opt out” of third-party releases; (c) non-consensual releases by opioid claimants; and (d) releases by the Debtors and affiliates of the opioid claimants. Although the Plan was (ultimately) overwhelmingly supported by the creditors, the US Trustee, the SEC and Rhode Island were objectors to different releases. The US Trustee and Rhode Island argued that the releases were “vastly overbroad, releasing persons and entities that did not contribute anything of value to the reorganization”. The US Trustee also argued that this Court lacked jurisdiction to approve the releases and that the creditors due process rights would be violated. The Court ultimately overruled the objections holding that it did have the jurisdictional authority to do so as the releases were integral to the success of the Chapter 11 plan and without the releases the Plan would fail. The Court also found that the two standards set forth in the Third Circuit case of In re Continental, 203 F3d 203 (2000) were met and insofar as it was unclear from the evidence produced that there were any material claims for liability against the non-debtors that were being waived, the non-consensual third-party releases were both “necessary to the reorganization” and “fair”.
Concerning the issue of “necessity,” the Court found that the releases were an integral part of the settlements embodying them, and therefore a necessary part of the Plan. Regarding the release to the non-debtors (third parties) they too were necessary because they were involved to such a degree with Debtor’s business that litigation against them would be a drain on the Debtor’s finances. As to the second prong of “fairness” vis-à-vis the opioid claimants, the settlements were negotiated at arms-length with a large group of sophisticated parties representing diverse interests and substantial consideration was provided in exchange for the releases via a well-funded trust to which the opioid claimants could look to for compensation. The Court emphasized the nature of the case as there were more than 3000 lawsuits regarding opioids and the releases would remove the continued issue of litigation and ensure recoveries to the opioid claimants. The Court then noted that since this case is occurring during an “extraordinary” time during the height of the opioid crisis, time was of the essence to resolve these claims.
In this opinion, the Court was clearly looking at the practical side of the Plan—without its confirmation there would be continued and extensive litigation which would not benefit the claimants, thereby increasing the estate’s legal fees and consequently reducing any recovery to the opioid claimants.
Note that the current Bankruptcy Code is basically silent as to whether non-consensual third party releases are permitted. Often, Debtors rely on 11 US.C. §1123(b)(6) to support these releases. With that said, the closest we had to allowance of such releases is in 11 U.S.C. §524(g). In October 1994, Section 524(g) was added to the Bankruptcy Code to “clarify” the ability to use third party releases as a result of the Johns Mansville bankruptcy proceeding, in that instance a release from future holders of future asbestos demands. (Discussion of Section 524(g) is for another day as this section did not clarify all of the nuances and issues which have arisen since then).
Due to the conflict amongst the Circuits regarding non-consensual releases, the issue will have to be addressed with some clarity by the Supreme Court or legislation. The nonconsensual releases have become the cornerstone of some of the biggest Chapter 11 Plans and can play an enormous role in Plan viability.
To discuss the issues raised here or any other issues involving creditors rights and bankruptcy, please contact Leslie Beth Baskin, Esquire at 215-241-8926 or at lbaskin@sgrvlaw.com.
0

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. distinguished attorney Stanley P. Jaskiewicz recently had a featured article published by the American Bar Association’s Voice of Experience publication.

SGRV attorney Stanley P. Jaskiewicz has been appointed to serve on the American Bar Association’s Voice of Experience Board for the 2021-22 bar year.

Voice of Experience (VOE) is the Senior Lawyers Division’s monthly e-newsletter. Each issue covers a broad range of topic areas, such as lifestyle, physical and mental health, financial well-being, practice management, technology, and more.

The magazine’s main audience is senior attorneys specializing in any area of law. It publishes articles on topics of interest for these lawyers, along with those related to business planning and management, politics, history, culture, travel, health, and the arts. Each article offers practical advice to lawyers later in their careers or those who’ve retired or are semi-retired.

In this issue, Mr. Jaskiewicz reflects on his experiences as an unpaid patient advocate.

What-I-Learned-as-an-Unpaid-Patient-Advocate-For-My-Wife5
0