Attorney Jack Haake penned an article, “In Tronox, 2nd Circ. Sends Clear Message About Injunctions,” analyzing what the In re Tronox Inc., No. 16-343, (2d Cir. Apr. 20, 2017) decision means for entities that don’t agree with how the court is evaluating their bankruptcy injunctions.
Haake’s article thoroughly examines the decision and explains that, per the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision, “entities dissatisfied with a district court’s interpretation of an injunction must choose either to comply with the injunction as interpreted by the district court or risk sanctions if they believe the district court erred.”
Haake’s article thoroughly examines the decision and explains that, per the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision, “entities dissatisfied with a district court’s interpretation of an injunction must choose either to comply with the injunction as interpreted by the district court or risk sanctions if they believe the district court erred.”
Related Insights
December 5, 2025
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Ninth Circuit Ruling Upholds Employee Speech Amid Stalled NLRB
Like it or not, social media has become the backdrop of almost everything we do. It's how many people read the news, interact with…
December 5, 2025
Legal News: International Trade Enforcement & Compliance
What Every Multinational Should Know About … Preserving the Right to IEEPA Tariff Refunds
Any company that has imported goods subject to the Trump administration’s fentanyl-based tariffs or reciprocal tariffs — i.e., the tariffs levied pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (the IEEPA tariffs) — needs to consider filing an action in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) to preserve the possibility of recovering refunds of these tariffs.
December 4, 2025
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Foley Automotive Update
Analysis by Julie Dautermann, Competitive Intelligence Analyst Foley is here to help you through all aspects of rethinking your long-term…