In Jaffé v. Samsung Electronics Company, Limited,1 a Court of Appeals protected the rights of cross- licensees of a German debtor’s American patents by applying the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, instead of inconsistent German law. Specifically, in Chapter 15 U.S. bankruptcy proceedings ancillary to German insolvency proceedings, the administrator notified certain cross-licensees of the debtor’s patents that their cross-licenses were not enforceable under German law. The cross-licensees argued that under U.S. law, they had the option to retain their rights under the cross-licenses.

Many loan agreements include clauses that permit borrowers to repay debt prior to the maturity date only if they make additional payments that are typically referred to as “prepayment premiums” or “make-whole payments.” The purpose of such prepayment premiums is to compensate lenders for what would otherwise be the loss of their bargained-for yields for the scheduled lives of their loans.

Part Two of a Two-Part Article

Last month, we discussed “prepayment premiums” or “make-whole payments.” The purpose of such prepayment premiums is to compensate lenders for what would otherwise be the loss of their bargained-for yields for the scheduled lives of their loans. Prepayment premiums are usually either based on a fixed fee, such as a percentage of the principal balance at the time of prepayment, or a yield maintenance formula that approximates the lenders’ damages in the event of prepayment.

The Delaware Supreme Court recently offered new insight into a dissolved corporation’s exposure to liability for third party claims. InAnderson v. Krafft-Murphy Company, Inc.,1 the Court held as a matter of first impression in Delaware that the statutory scheme governing the dissolution and winding up of a Delaware corporation does not contain a general statute of limitations that would shield a dissolved corporation from liability.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History2

On November 15, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Glenn, J.) issued a lengthy decision¹ in the Chapter 11 case of Residential Capital, LLC (“ResCap”). An important holding contained in this decision is that the bankruptcy claims of holders of notes issued with original issue discount (or OID) for tax and accounting purposes in a “fair value” exchange (an exchange for notes with a lower face amount) need not be reduced by any unaccreted OID^.2  

On May 13, 2013, the Supreme Court declined to review the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit¹ that had held that a security interest may extend to the “proceeds” of the future transfer of a license holder’s interest in its Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) broadcast license and that, under applicable state law, the security interest attached upon execution of the security agreement, despite the fact that the parties did not contemplate a transfer of the license at that time.