The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. ^[1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.

Background

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit") held that in rare instances a bankruptcy court may approve a "structured dismissal"- that is, a dismissal "that winds up the bankruptcy with certain conditions attached instead of simply dismissing the case and restoring the status quo ante" - that deviates from the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme. See Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), Case No.

On October 31, 2014, Bankruptcy Judge Kaplan of the District of New Jersey addressed two issues critically important to intellectual property licensees and purchasers: (i) can a trademark  licensee use section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code to keep licensed marks following a  debtor-licensor’s rejection of a license agreement?; and (ii) can a “free and clear” sale of  intellectual property eliminate any rights retained by a licensee? In re Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc., et  al., 2014 WL 5508177 (Bankr. D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2014).

Earlier this year, we reported on a decision limiting a secured creditor's right to credit bid purchased debt (capping the credit bid at the discounted price paid for the debt) to facilitate an auction in Fisker Automotive Holdings' chapter 11 case.¹ In the weeks that followed, the debtor held a competitive (nineteen-round) auction and ultimately selected Wanxiang America Corporation, rather than the secured creditor, as the w

Whether a secured creditor has an absolute right to credit bid at a sale under a chapter 11 plan has been the subject of conflicting decisions rendered by the Third, Fifth and Seventh Circuits.¹ The United States Supreme Court has resolved these inconsistent rulings with its decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al., v. Amalgamated Bank, ² which affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s holding that a secured creditor has an absolute right to credit bid in a sale under a chapter 11 plan.

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law concluded its series of hearings on the ramifications of auto industry bankruptcies. Testifying before the committee were:

Panel I:

Today, Treasury Secretary Geithner released a statement on the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry.

Yesterday morning, Chrysler Group LLC (formerly New CarCo Acquisition LLC), backed by Italian automaker Fiat S.p.A., acquired substantially all of Chrysler’s assets. Under the terms of the deal, a union retiree trust will initially own 55% of the new company, Fiat S.p.A. will own 20% and the U.S.

Late Sunday night, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez approved the sale of most of Chrysler's assets to Italian Automaker Fiat S.p.A., as contemplated in the Master Transaction Agreement between the two companies.

In an order dated May 7, 2009, Judge Arthur Gonzales approved Chrysler’s proposed bidding procedures for the sale of substantially all of the Company’s assets to a newly formed entity that would continue business under Chrysler’s name.