James C. Carignan

Staff Attorney

  • James C. Carignan
  • Phone: +1 215 979 1557

    Import to Address Book

  • Duane Morris LLP
    1201 North Market St, Suite 501
    Wilmington, DE 19801
    USA
  • Duane Morris LLP
    30 South 17th Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
    USA

James C. Carignan is an attorney in the Business Reorganization and Financial Restructuring and Trial practice groups where he focuses on business and consumer bankruptcy, creditor’s rights, distressed debt matters, commercial litigation, lien enforcement and consumer finance issues.  Mr. Carignan also has extensive experience with appeals.

Mr. Carignan is a 2002 graduate of Villanova University School of Law and a 1999 graduate of the University of Central Florida.

Areas of Practice

  • Business Reorganization and Financial Restructuring
  • Litigation
  • Real Estate

Admissions

  • New Jersey
  • Delaware
  • Massachusetts
  • Florida
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Education

  • Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, J.D., 2002
  • University of Central Florida, B.A., 1999

Experience

  • Duane Morris LLP
    - Staff Attorney, 2015-present
  • Pepper Hamilton LLP
    - Of Counsel, 2012-2014
    - Associate, 2004-2011
  • Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
    - Associate, 2002-2003

Professional Activities

  • American Bankruptcy Institute
  • Turnaround Management Association
  • American Bar Association
  • Delaware State Bar Association
  • The Florida Bar
  • New Jersey Bar Association
  • American Bankruptcy Inns of Court
  • Villanova Law School Alumni Association

Selected Publications

  • "Recent Developments in Preference Law: 11 U.S.C. § 547," Norton Annual Survey of Bankruptcy Law, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 editions
  • "Limitations Imposed Upon the 'in Pari Delicto' Defense," The Legal Intelligencer, December 2013
  • "Substantial Contribution Claims: How Much is Enough?," The Legal Intelligencer, November 2012
  • "Late Filed Appeal Denied – Computer Oversight Not 'Excusable Neglect'," The Legal Intelligencer, June 2011
  • "Third-Party Plan Releases Require Wide Support by All Creditor Classes," The Legal Intelligencer, October 2010
  • "Fixed Quantity May Not Be Required to Satisfy Safe Harbor Defense," The Legal Intelligencer, July 2010
  • "Goody's Family Clothing: Section 365(d)(3) Not the Only Way for Commercial Landlords to Obtain Full Payment," The Legal Intelligencer, April 2009
  • "Success Fees Under Section 328: Be Reasonable and Specific," The Legal Intelligencer, April 2008
  • "The Effect of the Bankruptcy Preference Statute (Including Recent Amendments) in the Commercial Setting," Bloomberg Corporate Law Journal, Summer 2006
  • "Once More into the Breach: the Supreme Court's Sovereign Immunity Decision in Central Virginia Community College v. Katz," ABI Journal, March 2006

Representative Matters

  • Acted as debtor’s counsel in Chapter 11 proceedings of global environmental solutions provider, facilitating section 363 auction and sale of debtors’ assets and confirmation of Chapter 11 Plan.

  • Representation of bondholders in execution proceedings against Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, successfully obtaining attachment of equity shares to enforce judgment in excess of $150 million.

  • Represented a major bank in appeal of adverse judgment in Massachusetts state court, where the trial court had imposed liability in excess of $115,000, finding violation of Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. Successfully obtained a complete reversal on appeal, by citing the trial judge’s numerous evidentiary and legal errors.

  • Represented PHH Mortgage Corporation and its investor, HSBC, as trustee of a REMIC trust in an appeal of an adverse sanctions order in New Jersey state court, where the trial court had found that HSBC failed to comply with a court-approved settlement agreement and sanctioned HSBC in excess of $172,000. Successfully obtained a complete reversal, on appeal, by citing the trial judge’s application of an erroneous and impermissible analysis in assessing the sanction.