Using bankruptcy to pause lawsuits
Herlihy v. DBMP
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Michael Herlihy and other plaintiffs ask whether DBMP’s bankruptcy, which they say followed a Texas Two-Step corporate split, was pursued in bad faith and justifies lifting the automatic stay (the pause on lawsuits).
- What's at stake
- The case concerns whether the pause on lawsuits against DBMP should be lifted for Herlihy and the other plaintiffs; the Supreme Court has not answered that question.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court has distributed their petition for a conference but has not agreed to hear the case.
The dispute centers on DBMP's bankruptcy after a corporate split that the plaintiffs describe as a Texas Two-Step.
Question presented
Does a debtor’s pursuit of bankruptcy as part of a Texas Two-Step scheme lack good faith, such that “cause” exists to lift the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)?
What happens next
The petition is set for the Court's Nov. 13, 2026 conference, where the next question is whether to hear the case. The conference distribution is not a grant of review or a promised decision date.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Case data updated: documents, description, proceeding_type
Show 7 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: documents, description, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Sources
Primary materials from the Court and the parties. Grounded in docket records and cited sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.