Alexandra Vinogradova v (1) Elena Vinogradova, (2) Sergey Vinogradov (BVIHCMAP 2018/052)

For decades, trademark licensees have been at the mercy of their licensors’ petition for relief in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Code allows debtor-licensors to reject executory contracts like trademark licenses, relieving them of the obligation to perform under the contract or license. Bankruptcy courts have long been in disagreement over the effect on the trademark licensee upon rejection of such a license. Is the license agreement terminated, leaving the licensee with no ongoing rights to use the trademark?

The Supreme Court, in Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC,¹ issued an unanimous opinion last week, ruling that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit correctly denied the ability of creditor Ritzen Group Inc.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, No. 13-3992-cv (L) (2d Cir., Dec. 19, 2019) that Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e) barred claims seeking to avoid payments made by Tribune to its shareholders as part of a leveraged buyout (LBO).

Only two asbestos bankruptcy cases were filed in 2019 – the lowest number in any one year since Congress enacted the special asbestos bankruptcy trust/channeling injunction statute, Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A bankruptcy trustee may sell “avoidance powers to a self-interested party that will abandon those claims, so long as the overall value obtained for the transfer is appropriate,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 15, 2020. Silverman v. Birdsell, 2020 WL 236777, *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2020).

When negotiating forbearance agreements with borrowers, lenders should consider including a pre-petition waiver of the debtor’s right to oppose a motion for relief from the automatic stay. In a recent decision, the Northern District of Georgia Bankruptcy Court found that a pre-petition waiver of the right to oppose a motion for stay relief was enforceable. A closer examination of this opinion provides guidance to lenders and secured creditors in negotiating these provisions with borrowers.

In a unanimous opinion released last week, the Supreme Court provided guidance as to how to determine the finality of an order in a bankruptcy case for purposes of an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The Court held that the adjudication of a creditor’s motion for relief from stay is properly considered a discrete and independent proceeding within a bankruptcy case and is immediately appealable.

Almost a decade into the current bull market, many economic prognosticators are warning of a coming downturn. At the same time, political upheaval and uncertainty around the world is changing the landscape for cross-border trade—including mergers and acquisitions activity. Hogan Lovells partners Richard L. Wynne and David A. Gibbons recently discussed how that macro environment is impacting distressed M&A today, and what steps business leaders and dealmakers should be taking to prepare for a shift in the economic winds.

In Short

The Situation. In Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether bankruptcy court orders conclusively denying relief from the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay are immediately appealable.

The Result. On January 14, 2020, the Court unanimously ruled that an order conclusively resolving a motion for relief from the automatic stay was immediately appealable, such that a later-filed appeal was untimely and must be dismissed.