Increasingly, struggling businesses are opting to use Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a vehicle to sell substantially all of their assets. This is because Chapter 11 debtors can sell assets under uniquely buyer-friendly conditions. The last several years have revealed a clear trend in favor of quick liquidation by sale motion. As businesses continue to falter and fail due to the continuing financial crisis, it is likely that liquidations by Chapter 11 sale motion will continue to gain popularity.

Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code, which was added to the Code pursuant to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Ace of 2005 ("BAPCPA"), creates an administrative claim in favor of pre-petition suppliers of goods under certain circumstances. From the time of its enactment, courts and practitioners have sought clarity regarding the correct interpretation of key elements of this section of the Code. This article examines the concept of the date of "receipt" of goods for purposes of §503(b)(9).

The chronology in many successful Chapter 11 cases is for the debtor to confirm its plan of reorganization, and then turn its attention to recovering preferential transfers of money or property made in the 90 days (or 1 year for insiders of the debtor) before the bankruptcy filing. This article explores the duty to provide information in the plan about possible preference actions, and the level of disclosure necessary to preserve them.

Can the owners of a company retain their equity interests in a Chapter 11 reorganization plan? The answer to this question is often critical in determining whether a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding is a desirable option for the company's owners. If the company is unable to pay its creditors in full, then the absolute priority rule prohibits owners from retaining their interests under a reorganization plan unless the owners contribute new value to the business that is both substantial and essential to the company's reorganization efforts.

Is a bankrupt pledgor legally bound to fulfill its promise to pledge a gift; or will a nonprofit have a successful claim against a pledgor if there is a subsequent failure to make payment because of a bankruptcy filing? A district court in Arizona recently held that St. Joseph's, a nonprofit hospital, did not have an enforceable claim in Bashas' Inc.'s bankruptcy for Bashas' $50,000 charitable pledge because of Bashas' bankruptcy. In re Bashas' Inc., 2012 WL 5289501 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2012).

DRI- The Voice of the Defense Bar

The ability of secured creditors to credit bid in sales conducted under bankruptcy plans of reorganization is an important right that protects them against low bids from rival purchasers. A secured creditor is typically permitted to offset, or bid, its secured allowed claim against the purchase price in a sale of collateral conducted under section 363(b) of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

One of the most powerful tools a chapter 11 debtor has is the ability to assume or reject executory contracts under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.  In bankruptcy parlance, when a debtor “rejects” an executory contract, it is considered as though the debtor breached the agreement as of the date it filed for bankruptcy and sheds the debtor’s obligation to perform under the rejected contract.  The non-debtor party receives a claim for damages arising from the debtor’s breach; however, in many cases, it will be worth only pennies on the dollar.  The converse of rejection is

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. 

In a recent decision authored by Chief Judge Easterbrook, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, Docket No. 11-3920 (7th Cir. July 9, 2012)) held that the licensee of a trademark does not necessarily lose the right to use the licensed marks when a debtor-licensor rejects the underlying license agreement in its bankruptcy case.  In so holding, the Court rejected a contrary decision reached by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v.

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.