Representative Legal Matters
Prior to joining the Firm, Richard worked on the following matters:
Representing a DIP lender in a large airline’s bankruptcy. Work on this matter included negotiating credit and equity conversion agreements, reviewing and revising various bankruptcy pleadings such as a Plan of Reorganization and Disclosure Statement, and analyzing numerous bankruptcy issues related to distressed lending.
Representing a major bond insurer in the largest municipal bankruptcy in United States history. Work on this matter included drafting numerous substantive pleadings such as Motions to Dismiss and Motions for Relief From the Automatic Stay, negotiating and drafting provisions of a Restructuring Support Agreement, and drafting multiple memoranda on a number of complex bankruptcy related issues.
Representing an insider purchaser of a distressed company in bankruptcy. Work on this matter included assisting in negotiating and drafting both Backstop and Restructuring Support Agreements, reviewing and commenting on numerous key documents such as a Disclosure Statement and Plan of Reorganization, facilitating a Rights Offering, and researching numerous bankruptcy issues that arose in the case.
Representing a finance company in a loan servicer’s bankruptcy. Work on this matter included drafting and defending a multi-million dollar claim, negotiating provisions of various documents such as a Cash Collateral Order and Plan of Reorganization, and drafting an objection to a sale.
Representing an insurer in a contentious bankruptcy of certain collateralized loan obligations funds. Work on this matter included drafting a Collateral Management Agreement and a Motion to Appoint a Trustee.
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York~United States (2018)
- New York~United States (2012)
- California~United States (2012)
- St. John's University, School of Law (LLM) (2012)
- St. John's University, School of Law (JD) (2011)
- Binghamton University (BA) (2008)
Author, The Very Limited No-Fault Equitable Subordination Theory: Why Section 510(c) Requires Misconduct in Nearly All Cases, 22 J. BANKR. L. & PRAC. 1 ART. 4, 2013