There have been two significant developments in the ongoing restructuring case for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. First, as was widely expected, District Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered orders on February 4 and 5, respectively, approving the Commonwealth’s entry into the Commonwealth-COFINA settlement (which we reported on here) and confirming the Title III Plan of Adjustment for COFINA.

Those who file UCC records often provide the required collateral description on an attached schedule or exhibit rather than the designated field on the financing statement. This well-established and accepted practice can save time in the filing process and reduce transcription errors. When providing the description using an attached document, the financing statement collateral field will typically incorporate the document by reference using words such as “See Schedule A attached” or words to that effect.

On January 17, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision holding that “impairment” under a plan of reorganization does not arise even if a creditor is paid less than it would be entitled to under its contract, so long as the reduced recovery is due to the plan’s incorporation of the Bankruptcy Code’s disallowance provisions.

The retail sky is falling. At least that is how it appears from recent and unprecedented number of retailers filing for bankruptcy. From iconic stores such as Sears and Toys ‘R’ Us, to department stores such as Bon Ton, to mall stores including Brookstone, The Rockport Company, Nine West, among others. The reasons given for such filings vary as much as their products but one theme seems to be constant — the inability of retailers to maintain “brick and mortar” operating expenses in the era of online shopping.

This is a favorable decision for commercial secured lenders. Although the ruling is not controlling on other bankruptcy courts as it is a trial court level ruling, courts may certainly consider it when presented with similar issues.

In In re 1111 Myrtle Avenue Group, LLC (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019), a New York bankruptcy court held that a default interest rate provision of 7 percent was enforceable and not a penalty against a debtor, which retained significant equity postbankruptcy.

Background

In the In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corporation bankruptcy cases,[1] the court recently issued an opinion narrowing the number of situations in which a fixed

I have been reading Storm Lake, a book by Art Cullen, the editor of the Storm Lake (Iowa) Times and a 2017 Pulitzer Prize winner for editorial writing. In his book, Cullen chronicles the ways that agriculture and his hometown of Storm Lake have been transformed over the years. What strikes me most about the book is how the business cycles of boom and bust still exist in agriculture today and are little changed from when I was growing up on a farm in Iowa decades ago. It appears that we are in or entering a new bust cycle in production agriculture.

The Supreme Court held oral argument earlier today in the Mission Products v. Tempnology case, on the issue of the effect of rejection by a licensor of a trademark license on the licensee’s rights.

After months of negotiations, drafts, compromises, and attorney’s fees, you finally enter into a licensing agreement granting you the right to use someone else’s trademark. Months or perhaps years later, the licensor files for bankruptcy and the bankruptcy trustee rejects the license agreement. Can you continue to use the trademark or does the licensor’s rejection of the licensing agreement effectively prohibit your continued usage of the mark?

In a case with far reaching implications for equipment lessors, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the Republic Airways bankruptcy case has held that a liquidated damages provision in a lease that requires the lessee to pay the lessor for a decline in the market value of equipment upon the lessee’s default is unenforceable.