The Department of Labor (“DOL”) sued the president of several related companies to establish his personal liability for more than $67,000 in employee contributions never remitted to the employer sponsored benefit plans and to prevent him from discharging this liability in his pending personal bankruptcy action. Over a nearly three-year period, the companies withheld but never remitted the employee contributions to the companies’ group health and 401(k) plans (the “Plans”).
A federal court recently held that two investment funds are not jointly and severally liable for a bankrupt portfolio company’s withdrawal liability to a multiemployer pension plan disagreeing with a 2007 opinion by the Appeals Board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”). The Massachusetts U.S. District Court ruled there was no liability because the investment funds are not “trades or businesses” for purposes of ERISA’s joint and several liability rules.
Commercial real estate foreclosures present a number of significant challenges to lenders, special servicers and their counsel that residential foreclosures do not. But residential foreclosures make up the vast majority of state courts’ foreclosure dockets, so the court system – including Judges and Master Commissioners – is often unfamiliar of the challenges associated with commercial foreclosures. This can result in delays, unnecessary expense and the associated frustration that invariably follows when a commercial real estate asset is tied up in Court.
This article provides an analysis of whether a licensee retains the right to use trademarks following rejection of an intellectual property license. The analysis centers on Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code as well as a recent 7th Circuit opinion interpreting the applicability of that provision to trademarks. In short, while there does not appear to be unanimity among the Circuits, there is growing authority for the proposition that the right to use trademarks does not necessarily terminate upon rejection of the license.
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently interpreted an ambiguous subordination agreement, finding the subordinated creditor was entitled to the appointment of a receiver over the mortgaged property. PNC Bank, National Association v. LA Develop., Inc., --- N.E.2d ---, No. 41A01-107-MF-314, 2012 WL 3156539 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug.
Perfection of security interests in intellectual property can be a trap for the unwary. In general, secured parties are often confused about where to file in order to perfect a security interest. This is not surprising as the perfection regime differs depending on the type of intellectual property. As a starting point, one should determine the general rule for the main classes of intellectual property: trademarks, patents and copyrights.
In a perfect world, a debtor's bankruptcy would involve timely reporting, good faith filings, and full disclosures. Unfortunately, some debtors either enter the process under a cloud of suspicion or make decisions during the process that suggest the estate has been compromised by fraudulent activity. Whether the alleged fraud is a complex bust-out scheme or a simple unreported asset transfer, the debtor may face a serious investigation. Depending on the extent of the allegations, the investigation could be referred as a criminal matter to federal prosecutors. As the
The Bankruptcy Code provides a number of “safe harbors” for forward contracts and other derivatives. These provisions exempt derivatives from a number of Bankruptcy Code provisions, including portions of the automatic stay,1 restrictions on terminating executory contracts,2 and the method for calculating rejection damages.3 The safe harbor provisions also protect counterparties to certain types of contracts from the avoidance actions created under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, such as the preference and fraudulent transfer statutes.4
In Salyersville Nat’l Bank v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 664 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir.
- Introduction
Recent cases interpreting Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., as amended) (the “Bankruptcy Code”) suggest that there are different standards for recognizing whether domestic entities and foreign entities have filed insolvency proceedings in the proper venue.