The Fifth Circuit recently upheld a Texas Bankruptcy Court’s refusal to enforce non-debtor third party releases in the Mexican reorganization proceeding (known as a concursomercantil) of Mexican glass manufacturer Vitro SAB de CV. As a result of this decision, Wall Street and the capital markets will breathe a sigh of relief and will likely continue to extend credit to Mexican corporations with some confidence that guaranties will be enforced.

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.

In a widely followed dispute, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will soon render a decision on the appeal of a Texas Bankruptcy Court’s refusal to recognize non-debtor third party releases in the Mexican reorganization proceeding (concurso mercantil) of Mexican glass manufacturer Vitro SAB de CV. Wall Street and the capital markets will be watching this appeal closely as a reversal of the Bankruptcy Court would likely make lenders and bondholders extremely nervous about extending future credit to Mexican corporations.

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

In Deephaven Distressed Opportunities Tradings, Ltd. v. 3V Capital Master Fund Ltd., Index No. 600610/08 (Sup. Ct., NY County, Jun. 26, 2012), Judge Melvin L. Schweitzer denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on its damages claims. The case arose from a dispute over the trade of distressed claims in the Sea Container, Inc. bankruptcy. Deephaven and 3V Capital executed trade confirmations that would convey “allowed” claims to 3V Capital subject to a negotiated assignment agreement. The parties signed confirmations on three trades, two of which led to this dispute.

In Salyersville Nat’l Bank v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 664 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir.