The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling yesterday in the First Circuit case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, resolving a circuit split that had developed on “whether [a] debtor‑licensor’s rejection of an [executory trademark licensing agreement] deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark.” And it answered that question in the negative; i.e., in favor of licensees.
When it comes to offsets, bankruptcy law provides for two distinct remedies: (1) setoff and (2) recoupment.
Setoff allows a creditor to reduce the amount of prepetition debt it owes a debtor with a corresponding reduction of that creditor’s prepetition claim against the debtor. The remedy of setoff is subject to the automatic stay, as well as various conditions under § 553 of the Bankruptcy Code — including that it does not apply if the debts arise on opposite sides of the date on which the debtor’s case was commenced.
Ultra court clarifies the requirements for classifying a creditor as “unimpaired” under a plan of reorganization.
Key Points:
• Texas bankruptcy court splits from Third Circuit in finding that a creditor must receive everything it is entitled to under non-bankruptcy law in order for the creditor to be “unimpaired.”
• The decision does not require that unsecured creditors receive post-petition interest but provides that they will be “impaired” if they do not
Second Circuit holds that Bankruptcy Code preempts creditors’ state law constructive fraud claims.
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction