Case Summaries

Bankruptcy Appellate Practice: The Entry of Bankruptcy Court Orders and the 14-Day Period to Appeal

February 4, 2020

Daniel A. Lowenthal

An appeal from a bankruptcy court’s final judgment must be filed within 14 days of when an appealable order is entered on the docket. Parties should not delay past the 14 days even if, for instance, the bankruptcy court must still decide a related request for an award of attorneys’ fees. Otherwise, an appeal will be untimely under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a)(1).

There are three ways for decisions to be entered. The most common is for a judgment, order, or decree to be entered in a “separate document” from the underlying decision under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58(a), (c)(2)(A) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7058. But if the court doesn’t enter a separate document within 150 days from when a decision is issued, then the entry date is deemed to be the 150^th day after the decision was issued, and appeals must be filed within 14 days of that date. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2)(B). Finally, certain other rulings don’t need to be entered in a separate document. Id. 58(a)(1)-(5).[i]

A recent appellate decision shows how these rules work and offers helpful guidance for practitioners. PC Puerto Rico, LLC v. Empresas Martinez Valentin Corp. (In re Empresas Martinez Valentin Corp.), No. 18-2103, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2701 (1st Cir. Jan. 28, 2020). The debtor, Empresas Martinez Valentin Corp. (“EMV”), filed for chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico. After the case was filed, PC Puerto Rico, LLC (“PCPR”), a party in litigation with EMV, seized personal property that EMV owned. EMV obtained a ruling that PCPR’s actions violated the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay and an award of damages.

The court’s decision was issued on April 4, but an appealable order wasn’t docketed then. Meanwhile, on April 18, EMV filed a motion for reconsideration seeking more damages than those awarded. The bankruptcy court denied that motion on May 30. On November 27, the bankruptcy court issued opinions and orders awarding EMV attorneys’ fees and costs and entered a judgment in EMV’s favor that referenced those awards and the April 4^th ruling on the stay violation. On December 8, PCPR appealed to the district court.

EMV moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that it was untimely. The district court denied the motion and affirmed the bankruptcy court’s rulings concerning the stay violation and the fees and costs. PCPR then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. That Court reversed, holding that PCPR’s appeal was untimely.

The court noted that the initial April 4 decision was “a final judgment for appeal purposes.” 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2701, at *6. But the bankruptcy court didn’t enter an order during the next 150 days, or by September 1. Therefore, under the second option outlined above, the April 4^th order was deemed entered on September 1, and the 14-day appeal period ran until September 15. Therefore, PCPR’s appeal filed on December 8 was untimely.

PCPR had argued that the 14-day appeal period should have been calculated from November 27, when the bankruptcy court docketed the orders awarding fees and costs and the judgment. PCPR asserted that the fees and costs were “compensatory damages” that were part of the damages for the stay violation. But U.S. Supreme Court precedent makes clear that an award of fees related to an underlying litigation is considered “collateral” to the final order and doesn’t impact the calculation of when a party in PCPR’s position must appeal. Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs & Participating Emp’rs, 571 U.S. 177 (2014); and Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988).

PCPR’s appeal would also have been late if the 150-period ran from when the bankruptcy court denied EMV’s motion for reconsideration on May 30. The 150^th day from May 30 was October 28. The 14-day appeal period would have expired on November 11. And, thus again, the appeal filed on December 8 was untimely. 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2701, at *8.

The First Circuit made two final points. First, Bankruptcy Rule 8002’s deadline for parties to appeal is a jurisdictional one that can’t be waived. And, second, this rule “points counsel to a safe harbor that avoids all of this: when in doubt, file your notice of appeal, because a premature notice, unlike a late notice, can still be effective.” 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2701, at *11.

[i] A separate docket entry isn’t required for an order disposing of a motion for a judgment under Rule 50(b); to amend or make additional findings under Rule 52(b); for attorneys’ fees under Rule 54; for a new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment, under Rule 59; or for relief under Rule 60.

Case Summaries

Supreme Court Resolves the Appealability of Orders Denying Relief from the Automatic Stay

January 24, 2020

Daniel A. Lowenthal

When a debtor files for bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Code provides for an automatic stay of almost all proceedings to recover property from the debtor. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). A party in interest can seek an order exempting it from the automatic stay for cause. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). A creditor that fails to obtain relief from the stay is limited to the claim-adjudication process in bankruptcy court. What happens if the bankruptcy court rules against a creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay, and the creditor seeks to appeal? Can the creditor appeal immediately or must it wait until its claim is fully adjudicated in bankruptcy court? The question turns on the interpretation of the federal statute governing bankruptcy appeals, which provides that appeals may be taken from “final judgments, orders and decrees . . . entered in cases and proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) (emphasis added). An automatic stay does not finally resolve a bankruptcy “case,” but does it finally resolve a bankruptcy “proceeding”? On January 14, the Supreme Court resolved that question affirmatively in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, ruling that a creditor who is denied relief from the automatic stay may appeal immediately.

Ritzen Group, Inc. (“Ritzen”) brought a breach of contract suit in Tennessee state court against Jackson Masonry, LLC (“Jackson”). Shortly before trial, Jackson filed for bankruptcy, and the state-court proceeding was stayed under the automatic stay. Ritzen sought an order from the bankruptcy court permitting the trial to go forward in state court, arguing that Jackson had filed for bankruptcy in bad faith. The bankruptcy court denied the motion and Ritzen did not appeal. Ritzen filed a proof of claim against the bankruptcy estate, which Jackson contested, and after an adversary proceeding, the bankruptcy court ruled against Ritzen on the merits. After the bankruptcy court confirmed a plan, Ritzen filed appeals from the order denying relief from the automatic stay and from the order ruling against it on the merits of its breach-of-contract claim. As to Ritzen’s appeal from the automatic-stay order, the district court ruled that it was untimely, because the order had been immediately appealable and the time for filing an appeal was 14 days from when the order was entered. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Ritzen sought and obtained Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court began by noting the difference between appealability in bankruptcy and appealability in general federal civil litigation. In general federal civil litigation, a party may normally appeal only from an order that resolves an entire case. A bankruptcy case, however, can involve many individual controversies, which absent bankruptcy might be resolved in separate lawsuits. The statute governing bankruptcy appeals thus permits appeals from final orders entered in bankruptcy “proceedings” as well as bankruptcy “cases,” which permits an appeal from a bankruptcy order that finally resolves a discrete dispute within a bankruptcy case. The Court thus asked whether an order denying relief from the automatic stay is such an order.

The Supreme Court concluded that it was. The Court reasoned that stay-relief adjudication is a distinct procedural unit, involving notice and a hearing and a determination of a creditor’s eligibility for relief based on a federal statutory standard. Claims adjudication is a separate process typically governed by state substantive law. While stating it was not determinative, the Court also noted that a neighboring statutory provision lists motions for stay relief as a separate bankruptcy “core proceeding” from the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Ritzen argued that an order denying stay relief was not a final order resolving a proceeding because it simply determined the forum in which a creditor could bring its claim against the estate. The Court gave several reasons for rejecting this argument. The Court noted that a decision on the automatic stay can have substantive consequences beyond the forum, such as delaying collection of a debt or causing collateral to decline in value. Further, orders denying access to a forum sometimes qualify as final appealable orders, such as an order dismissing an action for want of personal jurisdiction or improper venue. Also, because the automatic stay operates as a bar on even nonjudicial efforts to collect or control the debtor’s assets, motions for stay relief may not involve claims that would be brought in another judicial proceeding but for bankruptcy.

The Court also rejected Ritzen’s argument that orders denying relief from the automatic stay being appealable will disrupt the bankruptcy process. Instead, the Court explained, holding otherwise would cause delays and inefficiencies. Absent immediate appealability, a creditor that lost on the stay-relief issue would have to litigate its claim in bankruptcy court and then, if it successfully appealed the stay-relief order, re-do the litigation in its original forum.

At the end of the decision, the Court added a footnote noting that it was not deciding whether an order denying stay relief would be “final” (and therefore appealable) if the order did not preclude later applications for the same relief because further developments might change the stay calculus. (This issue was raised when the case was argued in November.)

Mr. Lowenthal, Chair of the firm’s Business Reorganization and Creditors' Rights Practice, has earned recognition as a skilled advocate in the bankruptcy, creditors' rights, and corporate restructuring arena. He represents creditors' committees, trade creditors, indenture trustees, and bankruptcy trustees and examiners in domestic and international cases.

Mr. Lowenthal recently served as counsel to the court-appointed Examiner in the chapter 11 cases of FTX Trading Ltd. and its affiliates. In this position, he investigated issues critical to the FTX bankruptcy cases, including potential conflicts of interest and fraudulent transfers, that were summarized in two publicly filed reports.

Mr. Lowenthal also represents U.S. and non-U.S. business entities in a wide range of complex litigation issues, including creditors’ rights disputes, purchases of intellectual property assets, and distressed debt acquisitions and restructuring. He has achieved numerous favorable results for clients in trial and appellate courts as well as commercial arbitration. Recently, he successfully defended former executives of a failed European bank against allegations that they had defrauded investors.

A regular speaker on bankruptcy law topics, Mr. Lowenthal recently presented for the American Bankruptcy Institute, the Practising Law Institute, INSOL International, INSOL Europe, and the Association of Corporate Counsel. Most recently, Mr. Lowenthal was a member of INSOL Europe’s 2023 Amsterdam Congress Technical Committee. He has been recognized by JD Supra’s Readers’ Choice Awards as one of the top ten authors in the Bankruptcy category from 2023-2026. Mr. Lowenthal has received Martindale-Hubbell’s highest rating of "AV Preeminent" based on both peer and client reviews and has been named to The Best Lawyers in America in the area of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law. He has also been named by Super Lawyers in the areas of bankruptcy: business and business litigation. Lastly, Mr. Lowenthal has been named to the 2022-2026 editions of the Lawdragon 500 Leading U.S. Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers guide.

Representative Matters

Represented court-appointed Examiner in chapter 11 cases of FTX Trading Ltd., including assisting him with various investigations summarized in two publicly filed reports.

Represented foreign administrators of a global alternative energy company in its chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy case, successfully petitioning the court for the return of over $28 million held in a U.S. bank account.

Representing noteholders of a Brazilian company in a lawsuit arising from a debt default.

Representing the Oversight Committee for a post-confirmation liquidating trust in the Southern District of Texas.

Representing the Indenture Trustee for a series of unsecured notes in connection with an Italian insolvency proceeding and a related chapter 15 case.

Represented a bidder in a competitive auction to acquire the assets of a chapter 11 debtor.

Lead counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of multi-state real estate developer with liabilities in excess of a billion dollars. The Bankruptcy Court praised the “remarkable results” achieved through the “extraordinary efforts” of Patterson Belknap attorneys in this case.

Representing an international financial institution as Indenture Trustee in cross-border insolvency cases pending in Grand Cayman and Hong Kong.

Represented an Indenture Trustee and Co-Chair of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on over $5 billion of unsecured debt in one of the largest, most complex cases ever filed in Delaware, the Energy Future Holdings Corp. cases.

Represented an Indenture Trustee in the Nortel Networks Inc. cross-border cases, a set of insolvency cases filed in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada.

Represented an Indenture Trustee on bonds governed by New York law in an insolvency case in London.

Represented an Indenture Trustee on $1.7 billion of unsecured debt in the Washington Mutual, Inc. case.

Representing a former member of the Board of Directors in The Weinstein Company Holdings bankruptcy case.

Represented an international law firm in a proceeding before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court relating to conflicts of interest in a Chapter 11 representation.

Represented the winning bidder in an auction to acquire the assets and intellectual property from a Chapter 7 debtor over the objection and competing bid of the debtor’s secured lender.

Special litigation counsel to an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to investigate fraudulent conveyance claims.

Conducted an internal investigation of a multi-national law firm following its role in a large Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

Representing the Post-Confirmation Trustee in the Tarragon Corporation case.

Special litigation counsel to a Chapter 7 trustee in the bankruptcy of an employee leasing company.

Represented an Indenture Trustee in the Nortel Networks Inc. cross-border cases, a set of insolvency cases filed in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada.

Represented the Liquidating Trust Board in the TerreStar Networks Inc. case.

Represented the Trust Oversight Committee in the Disney retail store chain case.

Represented Harrison J. Goldin, an Examiner in the Enron Corp. case, in an investigation of many of Enron's special-purpose-entity transactions.

Representing international creditors, including entities in the U.K., the Netherlands, and Germany, in the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. case.

Represented a Scottish aviation company in the Hawker Beechraft Corporation case.

Defending a reinsurance company in a fraudulent conveyance lawsuit brought by creditors of Tribune Company in U.S. Federal Court.

Representing a Mexican creditor in the Stanford International Bank Ltd. case.

Obtained a favorable result on behalf of the largest private bank in Brazil in connection with the Chapter 15 case of a Brazilian company.

Represented the Retiree Committee in the U.S. Airways, Inc. case, including serving as trial counsel on the debtor’s motion to eliminate retiree benefits.

Won a crucial decision of first impression for financial institutions whose security interests were challenged by the bankruptcy trustee in The Bennett Funding Group, Inc. case, a case that stemmed from an alleged $1 billion Ponzi scheme.

Represented the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the STAR Telecommunications, Inc. case.

U.S. Courts of Appeals, Second Circuit; Third Circuit
U.S. District Court, Southern, Eastern and Northern Districts of New York
New York

MEMBERSHIPS: American Bar Association; Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization Committee of the New York City Bar Association; American Bankruptcy Institute; Board of Editors, The Bankruptcy Strategist; INSOL International; INSOL Europe (2023 Amsterdam Congress Technical Committee); Turnaround Management Association and the New York Institute of Credit.

"Arbitration and Bankruptcy: Can a Debtor that is Party to an Arbitration Agreement Lack Authority to Arbitrate Core Bankruptcy Claims?" The Bankruptcy Strategist (April 30, 2026)
"Federal District Court Ruling Upholds Uptier Transactions," INSOL International (February 18, 2026)
"Judge Blasts Defendant for Ignoring Discovery Obligations and More," Law.com (January 27, 2026)
"Ninth Circuit Rules that Decision Reimposing the Automatic Stay is Immediately Appealable," The Bankruptcy Strategist (October 1, 2025)
"The Divestiture Rule Explained: A Judge-Made Doctrine Doesn’t Necessarily Deprive a Lower Court of Ongoing Subject Matter Jurisdiction," The Bankruptcy Strategist (June 30, 2025)
"Non-Creditor Was Entitled to Actual Notice of A Chapter 11 Plan's Injunction Barring Suits Against Insurance Carriers," The Bankruptcy Strategist (May 14, 2025)
"Formal & Informal Negotiation ASAP!" Eurofenix, the Journal of INSOL Europe (Spring 2025)
"A Primer on Chapter 11 Trustees & Examiners," New York Law Journal (April 9, 2025)
"The Barton Doctrine: Suit Against Receiver Did Not Require Court Permission," The Bankruptcy Strategist (March 31, 2025)
"Court Rules Mere Conduit Defense Not Suitable for a Motion to Dismiss," The Bankruptcy Strategist (November 2024)
"Ch. 11 Ruling Shows Early Attempt To Tackle Purdue Fallout," Law360 (September 5, 2024)
"Courts Split Over Requirement for Chapter 15 Jurisdiction In the U.S.," The Bankruptcy Strategist (June 2024)
"Bankruptcy Courts Have Contempt Power, Del. Case Reminds," Law360 (May 14, 2024)
"Bankruptcy Ruling Stresses Value of Client Communication," Law360 (March 25, 2024)
"Navigating Asset Tracing Challenges in Bankruptcy," Law360 (December 11, 2023)
"Section 363 Ruling Lines Up With Avoidance Action Precedent," Law360, (September 26, 2023)
"Post-Siegel Trustee Fee Rulings Further Debtor-Friendly Trend," Law360, (June 9, 2023)
"A Curious Bankruptcy Case Where Bad Behavior's Overlooked," Law360, (April 14, 2023)
"Substantial Contribution: a New Decision from the 3rd Circuit," Westlaw Today, (January 11, 2023)
“U.S. Bankruptcy Court Denies Chapter 15 Recognition to a Case on the Isle of Man,” The Bankruptcy Strategist, (January 2023)
"FTX Bankruptcy Provides A Road Map For Crypto Regulation" Law360, (December 1, 2022)
"What to Do If Your Tenant Is Bankrupt" American Bar Association, (November 29, 2022)
"Bankruptcy Ruling Provides Clarity On Administrative Priority" Law360, (October 28, 2022)
"Golf Project Ch. 11 Ruling Is A Deal Term Negotiation Lesson" Law360, (August 29, 2022)
"Examining Equitable Mootness After High Court Ch. 11 Denial" Law360, (July 2022)
"Recent Decision on Derivative Standing by a Creditors' Committee to Challenge a Lender's Liens" INSOL International News Update, (November 2021)
"The Impact of the CARES Act on US Consumers, Small Businesses, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Laws and Procedures" International Corporate Rescue, (May 2020)
"Bankruptcy Sales Under Section 363: The Business Judgment Test That Judges Often Cite Isn't Always the One They Use" Norton Journal of Bankruptcy Law and Practice, (February 2020)
"Bankruptcy Courts Don’t Need to Hold an Evidentiary Hearing in Order to Appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee" National Association of Credit Management, eNews, (January 2020)
"Court Decision Discusses the Barton Doctrine and the Automatic Stay in Chapter 15," INSOL International News Update, (December 2019)
"A Bankruptcy Code Chapter 15 Primer: Decision in New York Addresses Key Issues of Jurisdiction, Recognition, Public Policy, and More," INSOL International News Update, (November 2019)
Contributor to the Firm's Bankruptcy Update Blog
"New York Bankruptcy Court Issues Ruling on Recognition of Foreign Proceedings," INSOL International News Update, (September 2019)
"Buyers vs. Tenants in a Bankruptcy Sale A Tension Between §§363(f) and 365(h)," New York Law Journal, (June 2019)
Co-Author "The 'Substantial Contribution' Test for Indenture Trustees," ABI Journal, (February, 2019)
"Chapter 15: Court Permits Foreign Debtors to Access and Receive Funds in U.S. Account," INSOL International News Update, (February, 2019)
Co-Author "SCOTUS Recap: What Lies Ahead For the Lower Courts’ Tests for ‘Non-Statutory Insiders’," The Bankruptcy Strategist, (May, 2018)
"Venezuelan Debt Crisis Intensifies as Its Leaders Ponder Responses," Journal of Corporate Renewal, (March, 2018)
"Chapter 15: U.S. Creditor Required to Seek Recovery in Foreign Main Proceeding," INSOL International News Update, (February, 2018)
"Federal judge joins others, says bankruptcy court not allowed to impose punitive sanctions," Legal Newsline, (January, 2018)
"Retail Woes Mount as List of Troubled Companies Grows," Journal of Corporate Renewal, (June, 2017)
"In re Creative Finance Ltd: Chapter 15 Case Dismissed," INSOL International News Update, (February, 2016)
“Rights of Trade Creditors in the US,” Eurofenix, The Journal of INSOL Europe, (Spring 2015)
"Tough Choices Confront Trade Creditors When a Retailer Faces Bankruptcy," Journal of Corporate Renewal, (October, 2014) and the Sydney (Australia) Insolvency News, (February 3, 2015)
"Equitable Mootness: Two Recent Third Circuit Decisions," The Bankruptcy Strategist, (January, 2014)
"Stanwich Clarifies Wagoner Rule in Fraudulent Transfer Cases," Journal of Corporate Renewal, (October, 2013)
"Section 365(o) Coming into Focus," The Bankruptcy Strategist, (January, 2011)
"The Absolute Priority Rule: An Analysis in Terms of Armstrong World Indus., Inc.," The Bankruptcy Strategist, (June, 2006)
"Revisions to Bankruptcy Code Sections 365 and 366," The Bankruptcy Strategist, (April/May, 2005)
"Critical Vendor Actions: Paying Vendors to Supply Chapter 11 Debtors," The Bankruptcy Strategist, (June, 2003)
"Fraudulent Conveyance of Licenses Auctioned by the FCC: The 5th Circuit View," The Bankruptcy Strategist, (December, 2000)
"Analyzing Letter of Credit Issues in the Bankruptcy Context," The Bankruptcy Strategist, (June, 1998)
"3d Circuit Offers Primer on Valuing Debtor's Assets, Liabilities," The Bankruptcy Strategist, (April, 1998)
"Is a 'Mere Conduit' an 'Initial Transferee' Under Section 550?," The Bankruptcy Strategist, (March, 1998)

The George Washington University Law School (J.D., with honors, 1987)
Duke University (A.B., magna cum laude, 1982)

Recent Speaking Engagements

"Dissecting the Role of Chapter 11 Examiners and Trustees," Celesq Webinar (April 17, 2025)
"Formal and Informal Negotiation ASAP!" INSOL Europe's 2024 Congress in Sorrento, Italy (October 4, 2024)
"Tracing and recovery of debtor's assets by insolvency practitioners," INSOL Europe Annual Congress in Amsterdam (October 13, 2023)
"Are Bankruptcies/Insolvencies/Restructurings Returning?," SCG Legal's Midyear Meeting in Berlin, Germany - Panel Moderator (May 12, 2023)
“An Overview of Chapter 11,” Conseil National des Administrateurs Judiciaires et des Mandataires Judiciaires in La-Colle-sur-Loup, France (June 10, 2022)
“Equitable Mootness: What Should the Law Be?” American Bankruptcy Institute’s Annual Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C. (April 29, 2022)
"Chapter 15 at 15," New York City Bar Committee on Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization — Event Co-Chair (May 12, 2021)
“Venezuelan Debt Crisis and Related Social and Political Issues,” New York City Bar Committee on Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization (June 19, 2019)
"Asset Sales in Bankruptcy,"American Bankruptcy Institute's New York City Bankruptcy Conference (May 22, 2019)
"Venezuelan Debt Crisis," Expert Webcast (October 11, 2018)
"Cross-border Bankruptcy Issues," American Bankruptcy Institute's New York City Bankruptcy Conference (May 24, 2018)
"Cross-border Insolvencies," Fashion Institute of Technology State University of New York, International Finance Class (May 3, 2018)
"Cross-Border Panel," American Bankruptcy Institute's New York City Bankruptcy Conference (May 18, 2017)
“Cross-Border Insolvency Concepts,” Global Restructuring and Insolvency Conference in Barcelona (March 10, 2017)
"Current Issues in Retention and Compensation of Bankruptcy Professionals," American Bankruptcy Institute's 18^thAnnual New York City Bankruptcy Conference (May 12, 2016)
"View from the Islands: How Does Common Law Compare with Statutory Recognition Principles?," INSOL Annual Regional Conference in Dubai (January 25, 2016)
“Bankruptcy and the Retail Industry,” Industry Event in New York City (June 15, 2015)
"Cross-Border Bankruptcy Issues," ABI New York City Bankruptcy Conference (May 14, 2015)
Pre-Packaged Insolvency Proceedings: Developments and Hard Lessons Learned," INSOL Europe Annual Congress in Istanbul (October 10, 2014)
“Cross-Border Bankruptcy Issues,” ABI New York City Bankruptcy Conference (May 15, 2014)
“Bankruptcies in the United States: Key Chapter 11 Concepts,” Australian Restructuring Insolvency & Turnaround Association in Sydney (April 14, 2014)
“Intellectual Property Issues in Bankruptcy,” Asian American Bar Association of New York (July 11, 2013)
“Trademark and Patent Licenses in Bankruptcy,” ABI New York City Bankruptcy Conference (May 16, 2013)
“What In-House Counsel Need to Know Before a Counterparty Bankruptcy,” Association of Corporate Counsel Webcast (September 12, 2012)
"How Are the Lower Courts Dealing with Stern v. Marshall?" ABI New York City Bankruptcy Conference (May 9, 2012)
"Strategies to Succeed in a Crisis - How to Protect Creditors' Interests in the U.S. and Germany," Bankruptcy Seminar in Frankfurt, Germany (April 29, 2009)

News

October 28, 2024

Patterson Belknap Attorney Served as
Independent Examiner in FTX Bankruptcy Case
Firm Serves as Counsel to the Examiner

Patterson Belknap attorney Robert J. Cleary served as the Independent Examiner in the FTX Trading Ltd. bankruptcy cases pending in Delaware. Mr. Cleary was responsible for drafting an initial report summarizing the findings and status of all previous investigations into the...

December 15, 2023

Firm Secures Settlement in Multi-Million Dollar Investment Fraud Case

December 7, 2022

Firm Represents Global Alternative Energy Company in Cross-Border Chapter 15 Bankruptcy

October 28, 2024

Patterson Belknap Attorney Served as
Independent Examiner in FTX Bankruptcy Case
Firm Serves as Counsel to the Examiner

December 15, 2023

Firm Secures Settlement in Multi-Million Dollar Investment Fraud Case

December 7, 2022

Firm Represents Global Alternative Energy Company in Cross-Border Chapter 15 Bankruptcy

October 31, 2022

Firm Attorneys Honored by Legal Aid Society at 2022 Pro Publico Awards

January 12, 2021

Patterson Belknap Launches Commercial Real Estate Workouts and Litigation Group

September 14, 2017

Patterson Belknap Launches Bankruptcy Update Blog

January 31, 2017

Daniel A. Lowenthal Named Chair of the Firm’s Business Reorganization and Creditors’ Rights Practice

September 23, 2010

Partner Dan Lowenthal Profiled in Bankruptcy Professional

October 31, 2022

Firm Attorneys Honored by Legal Aid Society at 2022 Pro Publico Awards

January 12, 2021

Patterson Belknap Launches Commercial Real Estate Workouts and Litigation Group

September 14, 2017

Patterson Belknap Launches Bankruptcy Update Blog

January 31, 2017

Daniel A. Lowenthal Named Chair of the Firm’s Business Reorganization and Creditors’ Rights Practice

September 23, 2010

Partner Dan Lowenthal Profiled in Bankruptcy Professional

Publications

April 30, 2026

Arbitration and Bankruptcy: Can a Debtor that is Party to an Arbitration Agreement Lack Authority to Arbitrate Core Bankruptcy Claims?

The Federal Arbitration Act was enacted to require courts to enforce parties’ agreements to arbitrate disputes. More recently, the Supreme Court has said that “[t]he federal policy is about treating arbitration contacts like all others, not about fostering arbitration.” In...

The Bankruptcy Strategist

January 1, 2026

Judge Blasts Defendant for Ignoring Discovery Obligations and More

A recent decision by Bankruptcy Judge Brendan Shannon was peppered with some harsh words for a defendant in an adversary proceeding. Judge Shannon said the party’s “failure to perform basic discovery responses and participation in litigation … has been breathtaking....

The Bankruptcy Strategist

October 1, 2025

Ninth Circuit Rules that Decision Reimposing the Automatic Stay is Immediately Appealable

In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that a bankruptcy court’s decision to lift the automatic stay of pending litigation imposed by the Bankruptcy Code is a final, appealable order. But what if a bankruptcy court lifts the stay and later...

The Bankruptcy Strategist

April 30, 2026

Arbitration and Bankruptcy: Can a Debtor that is Party to an Arbitration Agreement Lack Authority to Arbitrate Core Bankruptcy Claims?

The Bankruptcy Strategist

January 1, 2026

Judge Blasts Defendant for Ignoring Discovery Obligations and More

The Bankruptcy Strategist

October 1, 2025

Ninth Circuit Rules that Decision Reimposing the Automatic Stay is Immediately Appealable

The Bankruptcy Strategist

June 30, 2025

The Divestiture Rule Explained: A Judge-Made Doctrine Doesn't Necessarily Deprive a Lower Court of Ongoing Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The filing of an appeal in federal court generally divests the lower court of jurisdiction. This rule of appellate jurisdiction applies both to appeals from a district court to a court of appeals and from a bankruptcy court to a district...

The Bankruptcy Strategist

April 25, 2025

Formal & Informal Negotiations ASAP!

In the United States, debtors in financial distress typically favor out-of-court restructurings over bankruptcy filings. Negotiated resolutions with key constituencies can be cheaper and more efficient than court proceedings. To continue reading Daniel Lowenthal's article in Eurofenix, please click here.

Eurofenix, the Journal of INSOL Europe

April 9, 2025

A Primer on Chapter 11 Trustees & Examiners

A debtor that files for Chapter 11 is referred to as a “debtor in possession.” Bankruptcy Code section 1107 empowers a debtor with the rights and powers of a trustee. A debtor in possession will be responsible for marshaling assets, administering...

New York Law Journal

November 14, 2024

Court Rules Mere Conduit Defense Not Suitable for a Motion to Dismiss

At the motion to dismiss stage, courts usually won't consider affirmative defenses. This issue arose recently in a preferential transfer case, where a defendant sought to dismiss a complaint by arguing it was a mere conduit, not an initial transferee....

The Bankruptcy Strategist

September 5, 2024

Ch. 11 Ruling Shows Early Attempt To Tackle Purdue Fallout

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP in June, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. Bankruptcy Code does not authorize nonconsensual releases of nondebtors as part of a Chapter 11 plan. The court narrowly read the Bankruptcy Code's language...

Law360

March 25, 2024

Bankruptcy Ruling Stresses Value of Client Communication

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P. Cox recently found that three Illinois attorneys violated their ethical obligations by failing to return their client's phone calls. She ordered the attorneys to return roughly half of their already-court-approved, and paid, flat fee. In...

Law360

All Publications

June 30, 2025

The Divestiture Rule Explained: A Judge-Made Doctrine Doesn't Necessarily Deprive a Lower Court of Ongoing Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Bankruptcy Strategist

April 25, 2025

Formal & Informal Negotiations ASAP!

Eurofenix, the Journal of INSOL Europe

April 9, 2025

A Primer on Chapter 11 Trustees & Examiners

New York Law Journal

November 14, 2024

Court Rules Mere Conduit Defense Not Suitable for a Motion to Dismiss

The Bankruptcy Strategist

September 5, 2024

Ch. 11 Ruling Shows Early Attempt To Tackle Purdue Fallout

Law360

March 25, 2024

Bankruptcy Ruling Stresses Value of Client Communication

Law360

Show All

Bankruptcy Appellate Practice: The Entry of Bankruptcy Court Orders and the 14-Day Period to Appeal

Supreme Court Resolves the Appealability of Orders Denying Relief from the Automatic Stay

Bankruptcy Courts Don’t Need to Hold an Evidentiary Hearing in Order to Appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee

Find a Person

Find a Practice

Daniel A. Lowenthal

Admissions

Professional Activities

Publications

Education

Recent Speaking Engagements

In the Media

News

Bankruptcy Update Blog

Retention of Bankruptcy Court Professionals: Court Concludes that Debtor’s First Cousin is Not “Relative” and Thus Not an “Insider”

Bankruptcy Court Denies Motions to Convert Case and to Appoint an Examiner

Arbitration and Bankruptcy: Can a Debtor that is Party to an Arbitration Agreement Lack Authority to Arbitrate Core Bankruptcy Claims?

Retention of Bankruptcy Court Professionals: Court Concludes that Debtor’s First Cousin is Not “Relative” and Thus Not an “Insider”

Bankruptcy Court Denies Motions to Convert Case and to Appoint an Examiner

Arbitration and Bankruptcy: Can a Debtor that is Party to an Arbitration Agreement Lack Authority to Arbitrate Core Bankruptcy Claims?

Bankruptcy Avoidance Law: Court Allows Bankruptcy Trustee to Sue a Subsequent Transferee Even When the Initial Transferee Isn’t a Defendant

Judge Blasts Defendant For Ignoring Discovery Obligations and More

Debts Related to Ponzi Scheme Deemed Non-Dischargeable

Federal District Court Ruling Upholds Uptier Transactions

Bankruptcy Court Clarifies Scope of Trustee’s Due Diligence Prior to Filing Preference Action

The Bourbon Industry Faces Hard Times

Bankruptcy Avoidance Law: Court Allows Bankruptcy Trustee to Sue a Subsequent Transferee Even When the Initial Transferee Isn’t a Defendant

Judge Blasts Defendant For Ignoring Discovery Obligations and More

Debts Related to Ponzi Scheme Deemed Non-Dischargeable

Federal District Court Ruling Upholds Uptier Transactions

Bankruptcy Court Clarifies Scope of Trustee’s Due Diligence Prior to Filing Preference Action

The Bourbon Industry Faces Hard Times

Publications

Arbitration and Bankruptcy: Can a Debtor that is Party to an Arbitration Agreement Lack Authority to Arbitrate Core Bankruptcy Claims?

Judge Blasts Defendant for Ignoring Discovery Obligations and More

Ninth Circuit Rules that Decision Reimposing the Automatic Stay is Immediately Appealable

Arbitration and Bankruptcy: Can a Debtor that is Party to an Arbitration Agreement Lack Authority to Arbitrate Core Bankruptcy Claims?

Judge Blasts Defendant for Ignoring Discovery Obligations and More

Ninth Circuit Rules that Decision Reimposing the Automatic Stay is Immediately Appealable

The Divestiture Rule Explained: A Judge-Made Doctrine Doesn't Necessarily Deprive a Lower Court of Ongoing Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Formal & Informal Negotiations ASAP!

A Primer on Chapter 11 Trustees & Examiners

Court Rules Mere Conduit Defense Not Suitable for a Motion to Dismiss

Ch. 11 Ruling Shows Early Attempt To Tackle Purdue Fallout

Bankruptcy Ruling Stresses Value of Client Communication

The Divestiture Rule Explained: A Judge-Made Doctrine Doesn't Necessarily Deprive a Lower Court of Ongoing Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Formal & Informal Negotiations ASAP!

A Primer on Chapter 11 Trustees & Examiners

Court Rules Mere Conduit Defense Not Suitable for a Motion to Dismiss

Ch. 11 Ruling Shows Early Attempt To Tackle Purdue Fallout

Bankruptcy Ruling Stresses Value of Client Communication

Firm Highlights