Does a creditor’s good-faith belief that a discharge injunction does not apply to its debt preclude a finding of civil contempt? Due to a circuit split, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide this issue.

Are a licensee’s rights to use a trademark safe if the licensor files for bankruptcy and rejects the trademark license? This is a question the U.S. Supreme Court may resolve later this year.

The Eleventh Circuit recently found in favor of Blue Bell Creameries, Inc. by rejecting its own earlier dicta and explicitly expanding the preference payment defense known as “new value.” This provides additional protection for companies doing business with a debtor in the 90 days prior to bankruptcy.

THE SCOOP: BRUNO’S V. BLUE BELL

Section 523(a)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a discharge under the Bankruptcy Code does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by use of a statement in writing that is materially false, respecting the debtor’s financial condition, on which the creditor to whom the debtor is liable for such money, property, services, or credit reasonably relied, and that the debtor caused to be made or published with intent to deceive.

On May 22, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Franchise Services of North America v. United States Trustees (In re Franchise Services of North America), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 13332 (5th Cir. May 22, 2018). That decision affirms the lower court’s holding that a “golden share” is valid and necessary to filing when held by a true investor, even if such investor is controlled by a creditor.

In Bakery and Confectionery Union Fund v. Just Born II, Inc., the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 26, 2018, affirmed the district court’s judgment requiring Just Born to pay delinquent contributions into the Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund (the Pension Fund), as well as interest, statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

The Circuit Courts of Appeal have split on whether a prepetition transfer made by a debtor is avoidable if the transfer was made through a financial intermediary that was a mere conduit. Today, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved the split by deciding that transfers through “mere conduits” are not protected. This is a major (and adverse) decision for lenders, bondholders and noteholders who receive payments through an intermediary such as a disbursing agent.

Courts agree that bankruptcy trustees control bankrupt corporations' privilege – just as corporations' successor management controls privilege protection. But does the same approach apply in an individual's bankruptcy setting?

In a previous article, The Eagle and the Bear: Russian Proceedings Recognized Under Chapter 15, we discussed In re Poymanov, in which the Bankruptcy Court (SDNY) recognized a Russian foreign proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code even though the debtor had only nominal assets in the United States (the “Recognition Order”). The Bankruptcy Court had declined to rule upon recognition whether the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C.

In October 2017, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in In re MPM Silicones (Momentive) LLC, held that a non-consenting class of creditors is entitled to receive post-confirmation interest at a market rate if an efficient market exists to determine such a rate. In reaching its decision, the 2nd Circuit overruled prior decisions by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, which had held that the applicable rate of interest should be determined using the formula method adopted by the Supreme Court in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S.