In a case originating out of bankruptcy court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s finding that a perpetual, royalty free, assignable, transferable, exclusive license granted as part of the sale of the business operations, assets and intellectual property associated with two bread baking brands was an executory contract. Lewis Bros. Bakeries Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp., Case No. 11-1850 (8th Cir., Aug. 30, 2012) (Bye, J.).
In a fairly controversial decision from January 2012, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois held that a financing statement must contain the “legal” name of an individual as it appears on the individual’s birth certificate. Miller v. State Bank of Arthur (In re Miller), Adv. P. No. 11-9055 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2012). On appeal, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois reversed and held that the Uniform Commercial Code requires only that a “correct” name appear on the financing statement.
Grogan v. Harvest Capital Co. (In re Grogan), 476 B.R. 270 (Bankr. D. Or. 2012) –
In Grogan, the debtors planted and harvested Christmas trees. The bankruptcy court was called upon to determine whether the debtors could exercise their “strong arm” powers under Section 544(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to trump the liens of two of their lenders on the Christmas trees.
Introduction
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of In Re: McCormick that a recorded North Carolina deed of trust indexed in a county’s grantor/grantee index may nevertheless be avoided by a trustee in bankruptcy if such county has elected a Parcel Identification Number (“PIN”) indexing system and the recorded deed of trust does not appear in such PIN index. This alert briefly describes the PIN system in North Carolina and the McCormick decision’s impact on the need for PINs in deeds of trust recorded in North Carolina counties that have adopted the PIN
On October 16, 2012, battery maker A123 Systems, Inc., and various subsidiaries, filed chapter 11 petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. A123 started its business in 2001 seeking to capitalize on the growing use of lithium-ion batteries in transportation and energy systems. According to papers filed with the Bankruptcy Court, the company first began producing commercial batteries in 2006. See Declaration of David Prystash in Support of Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Motions (hereinafter the "Decl.") at *4. By
A New York bankruptcy court recently held that a losing acquiror in a competing Chapter 11 plan fight had “standing” to seek reimbursement of its legal fees and expenses as a “substantial contribution” to the reorganization case. In re S & Y Enterprises, LLC, et al., 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 4622, at *4-*5 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2012). Nevertheless, the losing acquiror failed to recover because, in the court’s view, it did not satisfy the statutory requirements for reimbursement with the requisite “preponderance of the evidence.” Id.
After putting all of the specific deal points into a new contract, you are just about finished. All you have to do now is add in the “Miscellaneous” section with all of your boilerplate provisions like force majeure, choice of law and a few others. You have drafted so many contracts for so many years that you do not even know where some of the
In what it described as a novel issue of law in the Eighth Circuit (the Federal Circuit including Minnesota and North Dakota), the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) for the Eighth Circuit recently ruled in In re Lewis and Clark Apartments, LP that, in a valuation of the debtor’s low income housing project for purposes of its proposed Plan of Reorganization, the value of the low income housing tax credits (LIHTC) attributable to the project must be included. While this is a result lenders involved in the LIHTC industry may have assumed, it was not settled