Kilpatrick Townsend partner David Posner spoke at a recent New York State Bar Association event where he and other panelists discussed the topic “Around the Edges of IP: Complexities of IP in Bankruptcy.”
Mr. Posner provides four key takeaways from his presentation — “Recent Trends Involving Intellectual Property in Bankruptcy:”
On December 11, 2017, Charming Charlie Holdings, Inc. (“Charming Charlie”), the Houston–based fashion jewelry and accessories chain filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case in the United Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Charming Charlie has closed about 100 of its 360 stores. Further, its New York City flagship location on Fifth Avenue will soon close.
The company is working with turnaround advisor AlixPartners LLP, in addition to other restructuring advisors and attorneys.
On October 20, 2017, in In re MPM Silicones, LLC ("Momentive"), Nos. 15-1682, 15-1771, 15-1824, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, considering the Supreme Court's opinion in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), adopted the Sixth Circuit's two-step approach to determining an appropriate cramdown interest rate that, in certain circumstances, results in the application of a market rate of interest. In doing so, the Second Circuit reversed the bankruptcy and district court holdings on the cramdown interest rate issue.
The Second Circuit recently issued its decision on an appeal to the Momentive Performance Materials Inc. (“MPM”) bankruptcy case. Amongst other issues, the Court found that when determining the appropriate interest rate in a Chapter 11 cramdown, courts should consider market factors rather than strictly apply the Till formula. The Court’s decision will benefit secured creditors when a market rate is ascertainable, as they will no longer have to accept below-market take-back debt.
“[T]he largely debt-financed purchase of a family-owned [business] was not a fraudulent [transfer] and did not amount to a violation of the fiduciary duty of the company’s directors,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Dec. 4, 2017. In re Irving Tanning Co., 2017 W.L. 5988834, *1 (1st Cir. Dec. 4, 2017).
One of the fundamental elements of the American bankruptcy system is the automatic stay under section 362 of the bankruptcy code. The stay protects the debtor and its assets from creditor activity, in order to facilitate equitable treatment of creditors in the collective bankruptcy process. The remedies provided for violations of the stay allow the estate to enforce the protections provided by section 362.
This is the second part in a series of articles discussing certain restructuring and insolvency related provisions of the Tax Reform. Previously we discussed net operating losses (“NOLs”), and noted that the House and Senate plans are quite similar when it comes to NOLs. That is not the case with the provisions in H.R. 1 that relate to cancellation of the debt (“COD”).
The Delaware Bankruptcy Court recently authorized the sale of La Paloma’s electricity-generating assets “free and clear” of any obligations to surrender compliance certificates under California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. The ruling confirms the viability of Bankruptcy Code section 363 sales as a mechanism to release energy-related assets from certain ongoing environmental obligations.
“[T]he Bankruptcy Code does not permit [an undersecured] creditor . . . to advance an unsecured claim for post-[bankruptcy] attorneys’ fees,” held the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on Nov. 27, 2017. Summitbridge Nat’l Invs. Iii v. Faison, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195267, *8 (E.D. N. C. Nov. 27, 2017). Affirming the bankruptcy court, the district court agreed that “the Code is most properly interpreted to allow only oversecured creditors to add post-[bankruptcy] attorneys’ fees.” Id., at *10.
On November 28, 2017, Tidewater Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Tidewater Debtors”) withdrew their motion objecting to final allowance of rejection damage claims of Fifth Third Equipment Finance Company (“Fifth Third”). The notice of withdrawal indicated that Fifth Third, the sole remaining non-settling vessel lessor, resolved its dispute with the Tidewater Debtors pursuant to which Fifth Third’s “Sale Leaseback Claim” was allowed in the amount of $67,500,000.