The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has issued a decision with significant implications for licensees of trademarks whose licensors become debtors in bankruptcy. In Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, the Court considered whether rejection of a trademark license in bankruptcy deprives the licensee of the right to use the licensed mark.1 Disagreeing with the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v.
The Trustee overseeing the liquidation under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) of Lehman Brothers Inc. (“Lehman”) in the U.S. and the Joint Administrator of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LB Europe”) in the U.K. have reached an agreement in principle to resolve $38 billion in asserted claims among Lehman, LB Europe and subsidiaries and affiliates. The agreement is subject to definitive documentation and approval by the Bankruptcy Court in New York and the English High Court. The parties set December 15, 2012 as the deadline to reach a final agreement.
In the Summer 2009 issue of the Legal Canvas, we wrote about the wisdom of filing a UCC financing statement when art work is consigned to a gallery. Specifically, we said that the filing of a financing statement that reflects the consignor’s interest in the work provides protection against the gallery’s creditors. Financing statements take no time to prepare and cost less than $50 to file.
It could be money well spent.
U.S. bankruptcy law permits debtors-in-possession and trustees to sell assets free and clear of claims, liens and other interests. But a federal judge in New York ruled recently that a purchaser does not necessarily buy free and clear when a product manufactured pre-bankruptcy causes injury after a sale closes. Morgan Olson L.L.C. v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), No. 11 Civ. 2291, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44314 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2012) (JPO). In this situation, the purchaser can remain liable for injuries caused by the asset purchased from the debtor.
LEHMAN BANKRUPTCY
In re: Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 08-13555
On March 6, 2012, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliated debtors announced that their Modified Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan, which had been confirmed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on December 6, 2011, had become effective. Distributions under the Plan will begin on April 17, 2012.
On December 21, 2011, in the High Court of England & Wales, Norris J handed down his judgment in Re Virtualpurple Professional Services Ltd [2011] EWHC 3487 (Ch), and in doing so he has become the first judge to cast real doubt on the decision of the Chancellor in Minmar (929) Limited v. Khalatschi [2011] EWHC 1159 (Ch). This is a welcome development and should at least begin the process of finally determining the correct formalities for an out-of-court appointment by directors where there is no qualifying floating charge holder.
Earlier today AMR Corporation, its subsidiary American Airlines, Inc., and 18 other affiliates ("Debtors") filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan.1 The case was assigned to Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane. The Debtors have asked the Court to consolidate all 20 cases for procedural purposes under the captionIn re: AMR Corporation, Case No. 11-15463.
On August 30, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved the Disclosure Statement for the Revised Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the "Debtors"). The Bankruptcy Court's approval of the Disclosure Statement will permit the Debtors to begin soliciting votes to accept the Plan and is a significant step forward in the Debtors' efforts to achieve resolution of the nation's largest-ever bankruptcy.
Where lenders rely on floating charge security to make recoveries from companies in administration, some recent cases have massively increased the potential for administration expenses to swallow up those recoveries. The more well-known cases could just be the start. So, what are the potential risks? What can lenders do in the face of the law as it currently stands? What is going to happen next?
The Nortel decisions