Patterson Belknap
Microsoft has discontinued support for Internet Explorer. To access the Patterson Belknap website, please install a modern browser like Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.
We use cookies to enhance your experience of our website and provide us with information on how you use our website. For more information about the way our site uses cookies, please read our Privacy Policy. Click "Accept Cookies" to enable cookies and third-party content or “Decline” to decline the use of cookies.
Accept CookiesDecline
mobile logo
High Contrast Mode
  • Search
  • People
  • Practices
  • Values
    Inclusion and Engagement
    Pro Bono
    Core Values
  • Firm
    About Our Firm
    Careers : Attorneys
    Careers: Business Services
    Contact Us
    Blogs & Podcasts
    Firm News
    Publications
    Events
Skip Nav
Patterson Belknap Logo
Inclusion and Engagement
Pro Bono
Core Values
About Our Firm
Careers
AttorneysBusiness Services
Contact Us
News & Resources
Blogs & PodcastsFirm NewsPublicationsEvents

Find a Person


Search
  • A
    B
    C
    D
    E
    F
    G
    H
    I
    J
    K
    L
    M
  • N
    O
    P
    Q
    R
    S
    T
    U
    V
    W
    X
    Y
    Z
  • View All
  • A
    B
    C
    D
    E
    F
    G
    H
    I
    J
    K
    L
    M
    N
    O
    P
    Q
    R
    S
    T
    U
    V
    W
    X
    Y
    Z
    View All

Find a Practice

Search
  • Corporate & Transactions
  • Exempt Organizations & Private Clients
  • Litigation, Disputes & Investigations
  • All Practices
printable-logo

Publications

Search

April 26, 2023

Commercial Division Clarifies the Scope of Motions to Compel Arbitration in Commercial Disputes

April 12, 2023

Where Meat-Free Labeling Stands as 5th Circ. Mulls State Law

Law360
March 30, 2023

Commercial Division Finds Alleged Obligations Under Term Sheet Constitute Unenforceable Agreement to Agree

March 27, 2023

Donations of Private Stock: Timing is Everything

March 22, 2023

Commercial Division Dismisses ’33 Act Claim for Lack of Contemporaneous Falsehood

March 16, 2023

"Fit" For Dismissal: SDNY Rejects Class Action Misapplying FDA's "Healthy" Regulation

March 7, 2023

Grin and Bare It: Usufruct and Naked Ownership Structures in the United States

Tax Notes
March 6, 2023

OFAC Advises Companies To Institute Rigorous Compliance Controls In Light Of Russia-Related Sanctions

March 1, 2023

Nothing Fishy About Expecting Consumers to Read the Ingredient List

February 15, 2023

Second Circuit Narrows Reach of Wire Fraud and Insider Trading Prohibitions

Business Crimes Bulletin
February 9, 2023

New Rules on Charitable Gifts of Cryptocurrency

February 6, 2023

Pending FDA Cosmetics Review Allows Class Action Defense

Law360
January 25, 2023

OFAC Announces Amendments Authorizing General Licenses For Humanitarian Relief

January 23, 2023

DOL Issues New Regulations on ESG Investing for ERISA Retirement Plans

January 18, 2023

FTC Proposes New Rule Banning Non-Compete Clauses

January 18, 2023

New York Employers Must Provide Digital Copies of Workplace Notices To Their Employees

January 18, 2023

New York Not-for-Profit Governance Reminders for the New Year

December 15, 2022

FinCEN Issues Final Rule for Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements Under the Corporate Transparency Act

November 9, 2022

The Pinckney Plan, Dubious History and Originalism

The National Law Journal
November 1, 2022

Carrots and Sticks: DAG Lisa Monaco Puts Her Stamp on DOJ’S Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies

Business Crimes Bulletin
October 27, 2022

IRS Extends Deadline for Plan Amendments Under Certain Provisions of the CARES Act and the Relief Act

October 19, 2022

The End to Mandatory Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Disputes

October 6, 2022

Avoiding a Trap for the Unwary: Gains from Secondary Sales Treated as Compensation

September 23, 2022

Deputy Attorney General Announces Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies

September 20, 2022

IRS Extends Deadline for Plan Amendments Under the SECURE Act, Miners Act, and Certain CARES Act Provisions

September 15, 2022

Joint Juice Ruling Fails to Quench Thirst for Guidance on Class-Wide Statutory Damages Awards

August 18, 2022

Johnson Stands (For Now): Eleventh Circuit Keeps Its Ban on Class Rep Incentive Awards

August 1, 2022

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resource Center

August 1, 2022

EEOC Updates Workplace Guidance on COVID-19 Testing

July 26, 2022

Examining Equitable Mootness After High Court Ch. 11 Denial

Law360
July 22, 2022

The Reversal of Roe: Impact on Employer-sponsored Benefits post-Dobbs

July 21, 2022

Looking Back on the Breach: Fundamentals of Preserving Privilege of Forensic Analyses in the Wake of a Data Breach

Cybersecurity Law Report
July 5, 2022

Federal Court to Consider Constitutionality of Juiced-Up Statutory Damages Awards in Consumer Class Actions

June 28, 2022

Firm Attorneys Author “Trends in Class Certification” Chapter in GCR’s US Courts Annual Review

GCR's US Courts Annual Review
June 15, 2022

What Lawyers Need To Know About Non-Fungible Tokens: Part 2

New York Law Journal
June 8, 2022

New York City Wage Transparency Law Guidance Issued

May 26, 2022

Tenth Circuit Reverses, Finds Bakery’s Lanham Act Claim Under-Proofed

May 17, 2022

New OFAC General License Clarifies Ability to Engage in Humanitarian Aid in Ukraine and Russia

May 12, 2022

New York City Salary Law Amendment

May 10, 2022

New York Employers Now Required to Provide Notice of Electronic Monitoring

May 3, 2022

Federal Circuit Affirms Precedential Opinion Panel Decision Limiting the Circumstances In Which the Board Should Raise Sua Sponte Patentability Issues Against Proposed Substitute Claims

The Intellectual Property Strategist
May 3, 2022

Repairing the Foreign Agents Registration Act

Business Crimes Bulletin
May 3, 2022

SEC Reaches Settlement with App Annie: Alternative Data and Implications for Investors

April 19, 2022

Equity Compensation Highlight: Stock Options and Restricted Stock

April 14, 2022

New Decision on “Free Range” Hens Has Manufacturers Walking On Eggshells

April 4, 2022

Consumer Claims Melt Away Under District Court’s Scrutiny

March 31, 2022

New York City Salary Law Guidance and Proposed Amendment

March 28, 2022

What Lawyers Need To Know About Non-Fungible Tokens: Part 1

New York Law Journal

Page 5 of 19

Subscribe

Sign up

Firm Highlights

Blog Post
Fees Recoverable by Oversecured Creditors in Bankruptcy: The Application of Code Sections 506(b) and 502(b)
Bankruptcy Code section 506(b) entitles an oversecured creditor to post-petition interest and reasonable fees and other charges. Are a creditor’s pre-petition charges also subject to a court’s view of what is reasonable? Courts are split on this issue. A judge in New York recently explained why, in his view, reasonableness is not the right standard for the pre-petition portion of a claim. Pre-petition charges should be determined by applicable state law and not a judge’s analysis of what is reasonable. In re 1300 Desert Willow Road, LLC, No. 25-11375, 2026 WL 2088511 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jul. 20, 2026). The debtor is a single-asset real estate company. The creditor had loaned the debtor $20 million secured by a mortgage on real property. The debtor...
Publication
Supreme Court Declines to Revisit “Undue Hardship” Standard in Religious Accommodations Cases
On October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a request by a group of Washington firefighters for further clarification as to whether employers accused of illegally denying religious accommodations pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) must show that the requested workplace adjustments present an actual hardship. Petersen et al. v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue et al., No. 25-1210. The Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari signals a vote of confidence from the Justices in their landmark 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), which heightened the previous “de minimis” standard for employers’ showing of undue hardship in cases of denied religious accommodations requests. Religious Accommodations and Undue...
Publication
Data Sale In Spirit Bankruptcy Raises Novel Privacy Risks
In August 2025, Spirit Airlines filed its second bankruptcy less than a year after its first. Although the company tried to find a way to keep the lights on, in May 2026, Spirit Airlines pivoted toward liquidation in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Though asset sales are routine practice in large Chapter 11 cases like Spirit Airlines, in this case, the debtors' proposed sale of assets has raised novel data privacy questions that the law may not be ready to answer. To continue reading Daniel A. Lowenthal and Kimberly Black's article on this topic, please click here.
Blog Post
AI Companies Find Value in Bankrupt Companies
Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy in November 2024 and, after emerging from bankruptcy, filed again in August 2025. During the second case, the company tried to find a way to keep the airline in business but to no avail. In May 2026, Spirit Airlines pivoted towards a wind-down and ceased operations. This summer, as a part of its wind-down, Spirit Airlines began marketing its remaining assets. It had plenty of traditional assets to sell. For example, the debtors’ bid procedures motion filed in May 2026 listed the following assets: takeoff and landing slots at LaGuardia Airport; aircraft hangar(s); corporate headquarters; training center; multi-family residential buildings; ground service equipment; spare engines; flight simulators; aircraft maintenance equipment; and assets related to the...
Blog Post
You Win Some and Lose Some: Judge Liman Decides Competing Motions to Compel
On September 4, 2026, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Lashify, Inc.’s (“Lashify”) motion to compel discovery and denied Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited’s (“UCoolMe”) motion to compel. Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 25-cv-4183 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026). Lashify’s Motion to Compel Lashify moved to compel UCoolMe to provide responses to discovery requests relating to: (i) product samples and raw materials; (ii) manufacturing; (iii) employees and supply chain; (iv) marketing; and (v) finances. Id. at *2. The Court found that each of those topics were relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and that UCoolMe did not sufficiently respond to discovery requests related to...
Publication
U.S. Department of Education Formally Reverts to Title IX Rules from 2020
On September 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education (the “ED”) published a Final Rule, “Recodification of Title IX Rules,” formally removing the 2024 Title IX Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) and restoring the provisions of the 2020 Title IX Rule, with a few exceptions.[1] The 2026 Title IX Rule took effect upon publication. For most schools, colleges, and other recipients of federal education funding, the 2026 Rule does not change day-to-day obligations, because the 2020 framework has governed since early 2025. It does, however, close a chapter of litigation and set the stage for further regulatory action. As we reported in our February 6, 2025 Alert, a federal district court vacated the entirety of the 2024...
Firm News
Barbara Mullin Named Among Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 Top 250 Women in Litigation
Partner Barbara Mullin has been named one of Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 Top 250 Women in Litigation. The ranking uses an extensive research process, including “months of investigation into individual litigators’ professional activities as well as client feedback surveys and one-on-one interviews” to identify women who are “top players” in their field. To learn more, please click here.
Blog Post
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Crafts Test Concerning Post-Confirmation “Related-To” Jurisdiction
The filing of a bankruptcy case creates an estate consisting of the debtor’s legal and equitable property. The estate will continue until the debtor’s confirmed plan of reorganization or liquidation goes effective. It will then terminate, and the property will either revest in the reorganized debtor or be transferred to another entity such as a post-confirmation liquidation trust. Now and then, bankruptcy judges face this issue: after plan confirmation, when can a liquidation trustee assert state law claims in a lawsuit filed in the bankruptcy court? In terms of a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the question can be articulated this way: when can a bankruptcy court have post-confirmation related-to jurisdiction over such claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1334?[i] A bankruptcy judge...
Firm News
Law360 Spotlights Firm’s Litigation Department
Joshua Goldberg, Partner and Chair of the firm’s Litigation Department, was profiled by Law360 on the hallmarks of the department, including its trial-ready mindset and commitment to zealous advocacy. The feature also highlights the firm’s single-office operation as a key strength, along with its unique clerkship hiring model, focus on talent development, strategic lateral recruiting, and diverse litigation practice offerings. The profile is featured in Law360’s Litigation Daily and New York Pulse. To read the full profile, please click here.
Firm News
Firm Attorneys Honored by The Legal Aid Society at 2026 Pro Publico Awards
On October 7, 2026, The Legal Aid Society honored Of Counsel David Dykhouse and Associates Kimberly Black and Jillian Horowitz at its annual Pro Bono Publico Awards Ceremony. The Pro Bono Publico Award recognizes pro bono partners for their outstanding contributions to advancing equal justice for New Yorkers. Mr. Dykhouse, Ms. Black, and Ms. Horowitz were honored for their work representing a group of tenants in connection with a real estate group’s bankruptcy filing. Prior to its bankruptcy, the group owned 93 different properties with over 5,000 residential units. The tenants lived in unsafe and unsanitary conditions due to real estate group’s years of neglect. Patterson Belknap filed an objection to the group’s proposed sale of its real estate portfolio, asserting that the...
Blog Post
Fees Recoverable by Oversecured Creditors in Bankruptcy: The Application of Code Sections 506(b) and 502(b)
Bankruptcy Code section 506(b) entitles an oversecured creditor to post-petition interest and reasonable fees and other charges. Are a creditor’s pre-petition charges also subject to a court’s view of what is reasonable? Courts are split on this issue. A judge in New York recently explained why, in his view, reasonableness is not the right standard for the pre-petition portion of a claim. Pre-petition charges should be determined by applicable state law and not a judge’s analysis of what is reasonable. In re 1300 Desert Willow Road, LLC, No. 25-11375, 2026 WL 2088511 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jul. 20, 2026). The debtor is a single-asset real estate company. The creditor had loaned the debtor $20 million secured by a mortgage on real property. The debtor...
Publication
Supreme Court Declines to Revisit “Undue Hardship” Standard in Religious Accommodations Cases
On October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a request by a group of Washington firefighters for further clarification as to whether employers accused of illegally denying religious accommodations pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) must show that the requested workplace adjustments present an actual hardship. Petersen et al. v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue et al., No. 25-1210. The Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari signals a vote of confidence from the Justices in their landmark 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), which heightened the previous “de minimis” standard for employers’ showing of undue hardship in cases of denied religious accommodations requests. Religious Accommodations and Undue...
Publication
Data Sale In Spirit Bankruptcy Raises Novel Privacy Risks
In August 2025, Spirit Airlines filed its second bankruptcy less than a year after its first. Although the company tried to find a way to keep the lights on, in May 2026, Spirit Airlines pivoted toward liquidation in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Though asset sales are routine practice in large Chapter 11 cases like Spirit Airlines, in this case, the debtors' proposed sale of assets has raised novel data privacy questions that the law may not be ready to answer. To continue reading Daniel A. Lowenthal and Kimberly Black's article on this topic, please click here.
Blog Post
AI Companies Find Value in Bankrupt Companies
Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy in November 2024 and, after emerging from bankruptcy, filed again in August 2025. During the second case, the company tried to find a way to keep the airline in business but to no avail. In May 2026, Spirit Airlines pivoted towards a wind-down and ceased operations. This summer, as a part of its wind-down, Spirit Airlines began marketing its remaining assets. It had plenty of traditional assets to sell. For example, the debtors’ bid procedures motion filed in May 2026 listed the following assets: takeoff and landing slots at LaGuardia Airport; aircraft hangar(s); corporate headquarters; training center; multi-family residential buildings; ground service equipment; spare engines; flight simulators; aircraft maintenance equipment; and assets related to the...
Blog Post
You Win Some and Lose Some: Judge Liman Decides Competing Motions to Compel
On September 4, 2026, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Lashify, Inc.’s (“Lashify”) motion to compel discovery and denied Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited’s (“UCoolMe”) motion to compel. Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 25-cv-4183 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026). Lashify’s Motion to Compel Lashify moved to compel UCoolMe to provide responses to discovery requests relating to: (i) product samples and raw materials; (ii) manufacturing; (iii) employees and supply chain; (iv) marketing; and (v) finances. Id. at *2. The Court found that each of those topics were relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and that UCoolMe did not sufficiently respond to discovery requests related to...
Publication
U.S. Department of Education Formally Reverts to Title IX Rules from 2020
On September 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education (the “ED”) published a Final Rule, “Recodification of Title IX Rules,” formally removing the 2024 Title IX Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) and restoring the provisions of the 2020 Title IX Rule, with a few exceptions.[1] The 2026 Title IX Rule took effect upon publication. For most schools, colleges, and other recipients of federal education funding, the 2026 Rule does not change day-to-day obligations, because the 2020 framework has governed since early 2025. It does, however, close a chapter of litigation and set the stage for further regulatory action. As we reported in our February 6, 2025 Alert, a federal district court vacated the entirety of the 2024...
Litigation, Disputes & Investigationsicon right
Exempt Organizations & Private Clientsicon right
Corporate & Transactionsicon right
  • Contact Us
  • Subscribe
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy

1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 | Tel: 212.336.2000
© 2026 Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney Advertising. Website Credits