Tim’s practice focuses primarily on representing institutional investors, bond trustees, lenders, and other creditors in Chapter 11 bankruptcies and reorganizations, out-of-court workouts, and bankruptcy litigation matters across a variety of industries, including health care, retail, higher education, and real estate. Tim also represents clients in connection with commercial financing transactions and in complex commercial disputes.
Tim’s broad experience in bankruptcy litigation and general case administration includes representations of Chapter 11 debtors and trustees, post-confirmation liquidation trusts, secured and unsecured creditors, landlords, directors and officers, and asset purchasers on issues related to relief from stay, adequate protection, valuation, disguised financing, fraudulent transfer, plan confirmation, assumption/rejection of leases and executory contracts, Rule 2004 examinations, and appellate litigation.
Prior to joining Mintz, Tim was an associate in the Boston office of a full-service law firm, where he worked on a variety of bankruptcy and litigation matters. Previously, Tim was an associate in the Portland, Maine office of a regional, full-service law firm, where he gained substantial experience representing Chapter 11 debtors, and a mid-sized law firm in New York City. While in law school, Tim served as a judicial intern to Honorable Carla E. Craig of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Honorable Robert E. Grossman of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Education
- Brooklyn Law School (JD)
- College of the Holy Cross (BA)
Experience
- Representing a regional specialty gift retailer in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.
- Representing Bond Trustee in Chapter 11 bankruptcy of a health care system in West Virginia.
- Representing Bond Trustee in Chapter 11 bankruptcy of a health care system in Washington.
- Represented a third-party lender in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of a large coal mining company in connection with a weeklong trial on confirmation of the debtors’ plan of reorganization and related settlement negotiations and Rule 2004 examinations.
- Represented the purchaser in a successful sale under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of a several radiology practices.
- Represented a large mortgage lender in numerous bankruptcy cases.
- Represented an unsecured creditor in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of a renewable energy company in opposing the debtors’ exit financing proposal and confirmation of the proposed plan of reorganization, and on related appeals before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Represented landlords in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of a large retailer.
- Represented the trustee of a post-confirmation liquidation trust in a five-day bench trial against a debtor’s former directors and officers for claims related to fraudulent conveyances and breaches of fiduciary duties.
- Represented the directors and officers in the bankruptcy of a medical device company.
- Represented the debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy of a large paper mill company.
- Represented the Chapter 11 Trustee in the bankruptcy of a large railroad company, including on appeals before the First Circuit Court of Appeals and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit.
Recognition & Awards
- 2020 Turnaround Management Association's Non-Profit Turnaround Award
Involvement
- Member, American Bankruptcy Institute
Recent Insights
Viewpoints
Amendments to Bankruptcy Rules Set to Take Effect on December 1, 2020
December 1, 2020 |Blog
363 Sales as a Health Care M&A Tool, Part 2 – Pros and Cons for Buyers and Sellers
September 11, 2020 |Blog
363 Sales as a Health Care M&A Tool, Part 1 – Overview
July 28, 2020 |Blog
News & Press
Viewpoints
Amendments to Bankruptcy Rules Set to Take Effect on December 1, 2020
December 1, 2020 | Blog | By Tim McKeon
On December 1, 2020, certain amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure take effect. The amendments largely modify rules governing bankruptcy appeals, but also impact Rules 2002 and 2004.
Read more
363 Sales as a Health Care M&A Tool, Part 2 – Pros and Cons for Buyers and Sellers
September 11, 2020 | Blog | By Deborah Daccord, William Kannel, Rachel Irving Pitts, David Chorney, Tim McKeon
Over the summer, we wrote about why health care companies may want to consider buying assets out of bankruptcy, taking advantage of the Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sale process (a "363 Sale”). We are back with our second post, to provide more detail to the process and discuss some pros and cons of 363 Sales.
As a refresher, a 363 Sale couples a flexible and fast process with ample liability protection for willing buyers. The primary benefit of a 363 Sale is that a buyer can acquire the debtor’s assets free and clear of virtually all liens, claims, and interests burdening the assets and the debtor. And when Section 363 is coupled with the “assumption and assignment” provisions of Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor is able to assign most contracts or leases that a buyer may wish to purchase, including contracts with ironclad anti-assignment language, provided that certain conditions are satisfied. When a target is experiencing severe financial distress, the benefit of acquiring assets “free and clear” is extraordinarily valuable.
Read more
As a refresher, a 363 Sale couples a flexible and fast process with ample liability protection for willing buyers. The primary benefit of a 363 Sale is that a buyer can acquire the debtor’s assets free and clear of virtually all liens, claims, and interests burdening the assets and the debtor. And when Section 363 is coupled with the “assumption and assignment” provisions of Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor is able to assign most contracts or leases that a buyer may wish to purchase, including contracts with ironclad anti-assignment language, provided that certain conditions are satisfied. When a target is experiencing severe financial distress, the benefit of acquiring assets “free and clear” is extraordinarily valuable.
363 Sales as a Health Care M&A Tool, Part 1 – Overview
July 28, 2020 | Blog | By Deborah Daccord, William Kannel, Rachel Irving Pitts, Tim McKeon, David Chorney
Although health care may be well positioned to weather an economic downturn as an industry, certain sectors, including ambulatory surgery, vision, dermatology, dental, and other physician practices will bear the brunt of COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and patients delaying non-emergency care. While the onset of COVID-19 has delayed or derailed many transactions, strategic buyers should consider all of the different transaction tools available them to help maximize value and successfully get to closing. For knowledgeable investors and strategic buyers, now is the time to position yourself to acquire valuable health care assets at steep discounts.
For those unfamiliar with 363 Sales, a 363 Sale couples a flexible and fast process with ample liability protection for willing buyers. The primary benefit to a 363 Sale is that a buyer can acquire the debtor’s assets free and clear of virtually all liens, claims and encumbrances burdening the assets and the debtor. When a target is experiencing severe financial distress, the benefit of acquiring assets “free and clear of all liens” is extraordinarily valuable.
Read more
For those unfamiliar with 363 Sales, a 363 Sale couples a flexible and fast process with ample liability protection for willing buyers. The primary benefit to a 363 Sale is that a buyer can acquire the debtor’s assets free and clear of virtually all liens, claims and encumbrances burdening the assets and the debtor. When a target is experiencing severe financial distress, the benefit of acquiring assets “free and clear of all liens” is extraordinarily valuable.
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Rules that Shareholder Cannot Enforce “Golden Share” Blocking Right to Dismiss Bankruptcy Filed Without its Consent
May 27, 2020 | Blog | By Tim McKeon
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt businesses and markets, and companies begin to look to bankruptcy courts for relief from the resulting liquidity and operational distress, the issue of creditor and shareholder “blocking rights” seems likely to become an important topic as parties attempt to protect their investments.
Read more
First Circuit Issues Important Ruling on Valuing Secured Claims in Settled Causes of Action
April 22, 2020 | Blog | By Tim McKeon
In a recent decision addressing valuation issues, the First Circuit has issued an important reminder – and warning – to creditors seeking to establish a secured claim in settlement proceeds based on a security interest in the settled claim. In short, the key lesson for would-be secured creditors is this – the value of a claim is not equal to the value of damages!
Read more
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act: Assistance Available to Passenger Airlines and Airports
March 31, 2020 | Blog | By Tim McKeon, William Kannel
On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” (the “CARES Act”), a $2+ trillion stimulus package intended to ease the economic and social disruptions facing the country in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak.
Read more
Changes to Preference Practices Under New Bankruptcy Law
September 4, 2019 | Blog | By Tim McKeon
U.S. Supreme Court Adopts Rule Protecting a Trademark Licensee’s Ability to Use a Trademark after a Bankrupt Licensor’s Rejection of the License
July 8, 2019 | Blog | By Susan Neuberger Weller, Alexander Roan, Tim McKeon
This past May, in a highly-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has the same effect as a breach of contract outside of bankruptcy. The decision resolves an inter-circuit split on the effect of a bankrupt trademark licensor’s rejection of a trademark license, a question regarded by legal experts in the trademark community as the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.
Read more
Supreme Court Adopts a “Rejection-as-Breach” Rule to Allow Licensee to Continue to Use Trademark Following Debtor’s Rejection of License
May 29, 2019 | Blog | By Tim McKeon
On May 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a debtor-licensor’s ‘rejection’ of a trademark license agreement under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code does not terminate the licensee’s rights to continue to use the trademark. The decision, issued in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, resolved a split among the Circuits, but may spawn additional issues regarding non-debtor contractual rights in bankruptcy.
Read more
Supreme Court to Decide Whether Debtors Can Terminate a Licensee’s Rights to Trademarks under License Agreements
December 7, 2018 | Blog | By Tim McKeon
News & Press
Mintz Represents The Paper Store in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Proceedings
September 14, 2020
Events
Apr
8
2020
Preference Update: SBRA's Due Diligence Requirement
American Bankruptcy Institute Webinar
