Jeffrey Liesemer Comments on Federal Court Clashes

The Deal Pipeline spoke with Caplin & Drysdale’s Jeffrey A. Liesemer concerning jurisdictional clashes between bankruptcy courts, federal district courts, and federal agencies. Mr. Liesemer’s comments relate to Tribune Publishing’s efforts to acquire bankrupt Freedom Communications. The bankruptcy court in Freedom’s case approved Tribune’s bid, but a district court issued a temporary restraining order halting the transaction at the urging of the U.S. Department of Justice, which argued that the deal violated antitrust laws.  For the full article, published May 6, 2016, please visit The Deal Pipeline’s website (subscription required).

Excerpt taken from the article.

Also, there are cases where bankruptcy court and district courts work in concert.  Reorganization plans resolving asbestos-exposure injury-related claims, for example, must be approved first by a bankruptcy court and then a district court.

This authority stems from section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code concerning discharge of Chapter 11 cases, said Caplin & Drysdale Chartered’s Jeffrey Liesemer, who is representing the official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants in Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC’s Chapter 11 case. 

“Among other requirements in section 524(g), Congress specifically provided that a channeling injunction will be valid only if the confirmation order is issued or affirmed by the district court,” he said in an email.