One of the benefits the US Bankruptcy Code offers debtors is the ability to assign freely contracts under which the debtor has ongoing performance obligations, even if the underlying contract contains a restriction or prohibition against such assignment. Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has its limits and does impose certain conditions to such assignment, such as the curing of defaults under the contract (other than so-called “ipso facto” defaults) and the requirement that the assignee be capable of future performance under the contract.

In In re Squirrels Rsch. Labs, LLC, No. 21-61491, 2022 WL 1310173, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Apr. 29, 2022), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio recently addressed whether post-sale of the debtors’ assets, a creditor could conduct discovery to investigate the extent of a secured creditor’s liens in order to amend the distribution of the sale proceeds. Under the facts of this case, the bankruptcy court denied the creditor’s request.

The Bankruptcy Protector

The Bankruptcy Protector

In the case of In re Ricky L. Moore (19-01228), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa taught an important lesson in the context of Chapter 12 bankruptcy cases[1]: do not rely on repeated assurances of payment from a friendly debtor in lieu of filing your bankruptcy proof of claim.

In this type of market environment, one or more of the following scenarios may apply:

The US Supreme Court has reversed the First Circuit's ruling in Mission Products (Mission Prod. Holdings v. Tempnology, LLC (In re Tempnology, LLC), 879 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 2018)), thereby allowing the trademark licensee in that case to continue using the licensed trademark despite the debtor trademark licensor's rejection of the underlying trademark agreement in its bankruptcy case.

The US Supreme Court has reversed the First Circuit’s ruling in Mission Products (Mission Prod. Holdings v. Tempnology, LLC (In re Tempnology, LLC), 879 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 2018)), thereby allowing the trademark licensee in that case to continue using the licensed trademark despite the debtor trademark licensor’s rejection of the underlying trademark agreement in its bankruptcy case.

In LVNV Funding, LLC v. Harling, 852 F.3d 367 (4th Cir. 2017), as amended (Apr. 6, 2017), the Fourth Circuit addressed whether claim objections filed after a Chapter 13 plan had been confirmed are barred by the res judicata effect of the confirmed plan. Here, LVNV Funding filed unsecured proofs of claim that it conceded were barred by the statute of limitations.

In many decisions involving US chapter 15 cases, the bankruptcy court’s principal focus will be on what is the debtor’s center of main interests (COMI). An ancillary issue is whether it is appropriate to create COMI to obtain the benefit of a more favorable jurisdiction to restructure a company’s debt (otherwise known as “COMI shifting”).

As we previously reported, the amendments made to the Singapore Companies Act (Companies Act) are part of Singapore’s efforts to become a hub for the restructuring of troubled companies in Asia.