Silvia Stockman

Subscribe to Silvia Stockman's Posts

Silvia Stockman is an associate in Herrick's Litigation Department where she focuses her practice on complex commercial litigation, employment litigation and counseling, restructuring and bankruptcy, as well as other litigation matters.

Prior to joining Herrick, Silvia was an associate at Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP.

Contact:Read more about Silvia Stockman

Herrick’s Work on Behalf of Well-Renowned Bankruptcy Professors Supported Dismissal

In October 2021, LTL Management LLC (“LTL”), an entity created by Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) to hold its liabilities to cancer victims exposed to talc in J&J’s products, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Herrick team filed amicus briefs on behalf of a group of well-renowned bankruptcy professors in support of the Official Committee of Talc Claimants’ motion to dismiss LTL’s chapter 11 case.Continue Reading Third Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Bankruptcy Court’s Decision and Dismisses the Chapter 11 Case filed by J&J entity LTL

A decision in the Delaware District Court allowing nonconsensual third-party releases in plans of liquidation has a surprising origin – the Harvey Weinstein scandal.

In October of 2017, the Weinstein scandal exploded across the nation, bringing to light over 80 sexual assault allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein saw swift retribution: his businesses, The Weinstein Company Holdings and affiliates (the “Weinstein Debtors”), faced multiple lawsuits and filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in March of 2018. Weinstein himself was arrested two months later. The scandal triggered the #MeToo social justice movement, empowering victims of sexual assault and harassment across the globe to voice their claims. Weinstein was ultimately convicted on two felony counts of sexual assault, and the chapter 11 proceeding involving The Weinstein Debtors is drawing to a close in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.
Continue Reading Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases Not Limited to Plans of Reorganization

Dan Kamensky, the founder and principal of the prominent hedge fund, Marble Ridge Capital LP and Marble Ridge Master Fund LP (“Marble Ridge”), was arrested on Thursday, September 3, 2020, by the FBI, the most recent development in a dramatic chain of events in the Chapter 11 proceedings of retailer Neiman Marcus. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Kamensky’s criminal charges stem from his attempt to pressure a rival bidder to abandon its higher bid for assets in the Neiman Marcus bankruptcy – which would have allowed Marble Ridge to purchase the assets at a lower price – and then pressuring the rival to cover up the scheme.[1] Mr. Kamensky faces one count each of securities fraud, wire fraud, extortion, and obstruction of justice.[2] If convicted, Mr. Kamensky faces up to 50 years in prison. Also on September 3, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil complaint against Mr. Kamensky alleging violations of the federal securities laws and seeking permanent injunctive relief and civil money penalties.[3] Mr. Kamensky appeared in federal court yesterday afternoon, at which the terms of his pretrial release were set, including a $250,000 bond. At the time of this article, a spokesman for Mr. Kamensky has declined to comment.
Continue Reading Hedge Fund Founder Faces Criminal and SEC Charges Based on Alleged Misconduct in Neiman Marcus Bankruptcy

Introduction:

New York bankruptcy courts have long adhered to the 2007 ruling by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) in In re Enron Corp., 379 B.R. 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“Enron”), which held that Section 502(d) “disallowance taint” – the possibility that a bankruptcy claim may be disallowed if the claimholder received an avoidable, yet unpaid transfer – would not follow a claim that was sold, rather than assigned. However, an April 22, 2020 ruling by Judge Sean H. Lane in the case In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., 615 B.R. 161 (“Firestar Diamond”) reverses course, holding that a debtor could assert defenses against buyers of claims to the same extent that it had claims or defenses against the original owner of the claim.[1] Holding that disallowance taint travels with the claim, Judge Lane’s opinion effectively puts the onus on a would-be buyer to conduct diligence into the potential for a claim’s reduction, compensate for the risk in negotiating the purchase price for the claim, prepare for a future indemnity claim against the original seller, or otherwise protect its purchase.
Continue Reading S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Court Pivots from Enron; Holds “Disallowance Taint” Transfers With Purchased Claim in Firestar Diamond Case