(212) 907-7300
  中文

Reorganization & Creditors’ Rights

We pride ourselves on understanding the strategic implications of the restructuring process.

Whether in Chapter 11 or out of court, the restructuring process is complex, often requiring competing participants to make crucial decisions quickly in situations where each party has a different agenda.

Working successfully in this dynamic environment requires an intimate knowledge of the process, the law, and the strategic needs of all the players. Our understanding of the legal and strategic implications of the restructuring process may mean the difference between success and failure.

Our lawyers have significant experience representing the full spectrum of key parties in restructuring matters, including debtors, indenture trustees, investors, asset purchasers, Chapter 11 trustees, liquidation trustees, committees, landlords, secured and unsecured creditors, lenders, and boards of directors.

We employ an integrated team approach to restructuring matters that draw upon the firm’s bankruptcy, litigation, and transactional expertise.

Representative Engagements

  • Indenture trustees in Boart Longyear, Horsehead Holdings, New Gulf Resources, Lyondell Chemical Company and Charter Communications cases
  • Debtors in Integrated Health, Rotech Medical, Investment Properties of America and Family Golf Centers cases
  • Estate fiduciaries, including litigation trustee in Tribune case, Chapter 11 trustee in South Side House and Lehr Construction cases, and liquidating trustees in LandAmerica and 1031 Exchange Services cases
  • Foreign liquidator in Sovereign Assets Chapter 15 case
  • Landlords and lease purchasers in Sports Authority, Radio Shack, A&P and Cosi cases
  • Strategic asset purchasers in Kasper and Taylor-Wharton cases, and financial asset purchaser in Warnaco case
  • Secured lenders in Ahern Rentals, Foamex and Semgroup cases
  • Official creditors’ committees in Motor Coach Industries, Riverstone Networks and LTV Networks cases
  • Ad hoc noteholder groups in Calpine, Laidlaw and Triangle Wire cases and significant debt holders in Extended Stay and Weirton Steel cases
  • Boards of directors in Exide and Dow Corning cases

Case Study

Non-Compete & Trade Secrets

Non-Compete Claims

As part of its strategy to enter a new geographical market, our client, one of the world’s largest insurance brokers, hired a group of employees in that market from another of the world’s largest insurance brokers.

The Situation

As part of its strategy to enter a new geographical market, our client, one of the world’s largest insurance brokers, hired a group of employees in that market from another of the world’s largest insurance brokers.  One of the new hires became the President of our client’s affiliate in that market.  Shortly thereafter, the former employer initiated an action in Michigan state court against our brokerage client and its affiliate’s President, whom we also represented.  Plaintiff alleged that the new President misappropriated confidential information and was soliciting plaintiff’s clients and employees in breach of her employment agreement’s restrictive covenants, allegedly with her new employer’s encouragement and assistance.

Months later, during the course of discovery, two of plaintiff’s corporate clients transferred their health and benefits insurance business from plaintiff to our brokerage client.  Plaintiff filed an emergency motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.  In its motion, plaintiff sought to enjoin our clients not only from soliciting, accepting, and servicing business from plaintiff’s current or prospective clients, but also from servicing the two clients that had already moved their business.

The Solution

In the span of a little more than a week, the GEABP team drafted a 20-page opposition brief and secured three supporting affidavits, two of which were provided by the non-parties who had transferred their business from plaintiff to our brokerage client.  When plaintiff submitted an untimely and improper reply brief less than 48 hours before the hearing, we – less than 24 hours later – submitted opposition in response to that brief as well.

The Result

The preliminary injunction hearing was held remotely via Zoom.  After hearing oral argument, the judge gave his ruling from the bench, adopting all of our key arguments and denying plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief in its entirety.  The case settled shortly thereafter.