In this tumultuous retail climate, a string of recent conflicting court decisions remind retailers that the potential impact of a licensor bankruptcy on a trademark licensee’s rights may vary dramatically depending on the location of the licensor’s bankruptcy proceedings.
The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently held in In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC that while Rule 3001 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism for transfers of claims, Rule 3001 is not a substantive provision allowing claims trading for notes with legally valid anti-assignment provisions.
Background
An accounting firm in the United States must produce workpapers to a chapter 15 foreign representative even if the law where the foreign main proceeding is pending would not permit such production. CohnReznick LLP v. Foreign Representatives of Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund L.P. (In re Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund L.P.), No. 18-5176 (DLC), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109684 (S.D.N.Y June 29, 2018).
Tintri, Inc., a Mountain View, California-based enterprise cloud storage company, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 18-11625).
On June 29, the FDIC and Federal Reserve issued (here and here) a joint request for public comment on proposed revisions to resolution plan guidance for the eight largest and most complex U.S. banks.
WIS Holding Company, Inc., along with six affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-11579).
The Bottom Line
The government action bar provides that a relator may not bring a False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit “based upon allegations or transactions which are the subject of a civil suit or anadministrative civil money penalty proceeding in which the Government is already a party.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(3) (emphasis added). Recently, in Schagrin v. LDR Industries, LLC, No. 14 C 9125, 2018 WL 2332252 (N.D. Ill.
Although the legal community eagerly awaits the California Supreme Court’s decision on advance waivers in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton v. J-M Mfg. (Cal. No. S232946), a recent decision in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of In re: Relativity Media, LLC, has addressed similar issues and provides some guidance.