In Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology LLC, the US Supreme Court will attempt to clarify the impact of bankruptcy proceedings on trademark licenses. The court will determine whether or not the rejection of a license in bankruptcy means the licensee’s right to the trademarks is terminated.

Womble Bond Dickinson attorneys Christopher Bolen and Taylor Ey spoke with IPWatchdog on this issue, which the International Trademark Association (INTA) calls “the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.”

Who is the real holder of a FCRA claim brought by a Chapter 7 debtor? That’s the question that confronted the Eastern District of Wisconsin recently in Kitchner v. Fiergola, 2018 WL 4473359 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 18, 2018).

Under the facts of Kitchner, Plaintiff, Megan Kitchner, (“Kitchner”) alleged that the Kohn Law Firm of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (“Kohn”), violated the FCRA and the FDCPA by disclosing her credit score and credit report in a small-claims collection action filed on March 9, 2017.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court for the United States unanimously held that an order denying confirmation of a plan is not a “final” order subject to immediate appeal as a matter of right.1 Although the Bullard decision involved a plan proposed under chapter 13 to title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the “Bankruptcy Code”), the holding is equally applicable to bankruptcy cases filed under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.

In In re Filene’s Basement, LLC,¹ the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware considered the rejection damages a landlord claimant was entitled to pursuant to Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code after the debtor rejected its lease as part of its reorganization plan.

The following Middle Market insight* originally appeared in the Spring 2015 edition of Disclosure Statement, the official publication of the Bankruptcy Section of the North Carolina Bar Association.