Business Law Insolvency Law Committee

The following is a case review written by Joseph Boufadel, a partner at Salvato Boufadel LLP, analyzing a recent decision of interest, Kim v. Kim (In re Kim), 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 3265 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2025). Read more

March 4, 2026 Summary The Ninth Circuit BAP affirmed orders denying a § 362(c)(3) stay extension and then dismissing the Chapter 11 case under § 1112(b), finding the debtor’s bad faith egregious under the Leavitt factors, warranting dismissal and a two-year bar under § 349(a). To view the full decisions, click here and here. Facts “… the [district] court ‘cannot conclude that his litigation history has reached the point of vexatious -- though it’s close.’” Van Damme 25-1052, at *9.… Read more

The following is a case summary written by Gary M. Kaplan, a partner at Farella Braun + Martel LLP in San Francisco, analyzing Griffithe v. Samec (In re Griffithe), 674 B.R. 91 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2025), a recent decision of interest. Read more

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the 9th Circuit, Judges Brand, Lafferty and Gan, affirmed the order of Nevada Bankruptcy Judge Gary A. Spraker, which determined Plaintiff Steven Mark Hayden (“Hayden”) to be a vexatious litigant and imposed a pre filing order requiring Hayden to submit filings to the United States Bankruptcy Court for Judicial review prior to filing. In re Cashion Family Trust, 669 B.R. 341(Bankr. D.  Nev. 2025).  Read more

Dear constituency list members of the Insolvency Law Committee (ILC), the following is an ebulletin by Leonard Gumport about developments in the Purdue Pharma L.P. case: Summary During 2008-2016, while marketing OxyContin, Purdue Pharma L.P. (Purdue) distributed $10+ billion to or for the benefit of Purdue’s owners (the Sacklers). In 2019, debtors Purdue, its general partner, and subsidiaries (collectively, Debtors) filed chapter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court). The… Read more

January 12, 2026 The following is a case review written by Hale Andrew Antico, Chief Counsel of Antico Law Firm, analyzing Namba v. Jafroodi (In re Jafroodi), 2025 WL 3539243 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Nov 30, 2025), a recent case of interest. SUMMARY In Jafroodi, the bankruptcy court held that a jury trial demand filed months after the amended complaint was not waived by procedural delay or a district court's denial of withdrawal, preserving the Seventh Amendment right despite administrative lags. … Read more

In Morsey, the bankruptcy court granted the motion of the chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”) to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff Community Financial Services Bank, Inc. (the “Bank”) seeking damages for the Trustee’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty and negligence in his handling of collection of receivables comprising the Bank’s cash collateral pursuant to a contract. In essence, the bankruptcy court reasoned that the Bank’s claim would elevate the Trustee’s fiduciary duty to the Bank above his fiduciary duty to all other creditors, as well as hold the Trustee responsible for some of the Bank’s own failures. Read more

In an eligibility dispute in a Subchapter V Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan (the Court) ruled the debtor was eligible, concluding that debts asserted in a Qui Tam action against the debtor for alleged misuse of Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) funds were contingent and unliquidated.  Read more

In a Memorandum Opinion addressing a motion to dismiss an adversary complaint and for reconsideration, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court) ruled (1) that a bankruptcy court could entertain a class action claim for declaratory relief arising from violation of the discharge injunction and (2) that a private right of action exists for a violation of the discharge injunction.  Read more

November 18, 2025 Dear constituency list members of the Insolvency Law Committee, please be advised that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California just issued General Order 210: Filings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence, which governs the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) for all pleadings, motions, and papers filed in Court proceedings. General Order 210 is effective January 1, 2026.  Click HERE to view General Order 210. Thank you for your continued support of the Committee. Read more