On June 7, 2019, Judge Dennis Montali of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of California San Francisco Division found that FERC’s finding that it had concurrent jurisdiction with the U.S. bankruptcy court over wholesale power agreements was “unenforceable in bankruptcy court and of no force on the parties before it.” Judge Montali further noted that if necessary, the U.S. bankruptcy court will “enjoin FERC from perpetuating its attempt to exercise power it wholly lacks.” At issue, on review by the bankruptcy court, was whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Lenders and their counsel know that it is important to properly describe the collateral on which a lien (mortgage or security interest) is being granted. The purpose of this post is to discuss some recent decisions contrary to what many corporate counsel thought they knew concerning collateral descriptions in security agreements and UCC financing statements.

On May 20, 2019, the US Supreme Court clarified that when a trademark licensor rejects a trademark license agreement in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, the rejection does not rescind the use rights of the licensee under the license agreement. The decision resolved a circuit split on this issue between the First and Seventh Circuits. The Court held that the licensor’s rejection of the license agreement in bankruptcy has the same effect on the licensee’s rights as a licensor’s breach of the license agreement outside of bankruptcy.

Latham & Watkins operates worldwide as a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (USA) with affiliated limited liability partnerships conducting the practice in France, Hong Kong, Italy, Singapore, and the United Kingdom and as an affiliated partnership conducting the practice in Japan. Latham & Watkins operates in South Korea as a Foreign Legal Consultant Office. Latham & Watkins works in cooperation with the Law Office of Salman M. Al-Sudairi in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Buyers and sellers of contaminated properties will want to take note of the June 3, 2019 ruling from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York. In a 14-page opinion, Judge Cangilos-Ruiz ruled that neither a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) § 104(e) information request nor a National Priority Listing regarding a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated section of the Black River constitute “claims” under New York law.

On June 19, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) affirmed a ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) dismissing challenges by certain first lien creditors of Texas Competitive Electric Holdings LLC (“TCEH”) to the plan distributions and adequate protection payments made during TCEH’s bankruptcy case.

The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-307, represents a federal policy in favor of enforcing arbitration clauses. The Supreme Court has held that courts are generally obligated to enforce arbitration clauses absent a countervailing federal statute. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 226 (1987). However, this policy inevitably comes into conflict with the Bankruptcy Code, which is grounded on a policy of centralized dispute resolution. Congress has not offered any legislative guidance on how to reconcile these competing policies.

In several cases since the seminal 2011 Delaware Supreme Court decision CML V LLC v. Bax, which held that creditors of Delaware LLCs lack standing to pursue derivative claims, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has expanded the jurisprudence regarding the assertion of derivative claims and alternative entities. Most recently, in Gavin/Solmonese LLC v.

On June 14, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion[i] affirming bankruptcy and district court decisions finding that, under the terms of the confirmed chapter 11 bankruptcy plan, the debtor’s lenders were not entitled to receive over thirty million dollars of post-petition default interest even though the lenders were fully secured.

In SummitBridge Nat’l Invs. III, LLC v. Faison, 915 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that an unsecured or undersecured creditor may include postpetition attorney’s fees and costs as part of its allowed claim in a bankruptcy case.

Unsecured Creditors and Postpetition Attorney’s Fees and Costs