On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court settled a circuit split concerning whether a debtor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code “deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark.” In a decision written by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held that while a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license results in a pre-petition breach, it does not constitute a rescission of the contract, and thus the licensee may retain the rights granted to it under the license.

Despite recent decisions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Momentive) and the Fifth Circuit (Ultra) questioning the enforceability of make-whole provisions in bankruptcy, on March 18, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York determined in 1141 Realty that the make-whole provision contained in a loan agreement was enforceable notwithstanding acceleration of the loan by the secured lender.

Background on Enforceability of Make-Whole Provisions in Bankruptcy

In 2018, approximately 40 companies in the oil and gas industry filed bankruptcy in the United States, including companies engaged in exploration and production, oilfield services, and midstream services.

Two years ago, after a slew of bankruptcies in the energy sector triggered by a dramatic drop in commodity prices during the worst downturn for U.S. energy producers since the 1980’s, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued new guidance that proposed changes to underwriting analysis and loan risk rating determinations by national banks and federal savings associations of loans secured by oil and gas reserves (RBLs).

1 Driven by a concern that banks were not appropriately capturing risks associated with increased

The government action bar provides that a relator may not bring a False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit “based upon allegations or transactions which are the subject of a civil suit or anadministrative civil money penalty proceeding in which the Government is already a party.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(3) (emphasis added). Recently, in Schagrin v. LDR Industries, LLC, No. 14 C 9125, 2018 WL 2332252 (N.D. Ill.

On May 25, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court decision finding that producer Sabine Oil and Gas Corp. could reject certain midstream gathering contracts in its bankruptcy case.i

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s decision that the gas gathering contracts that Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation entered into with two midstream service companies were personal obligations, and not “covenants running with the land” under Texas law, which, therefore, could be rejected under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Executive Summary

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) issued an opinion on April 9, 2018 recognizing and enforcing a scheme of arrangement that contained non-consensual releases of non-debtor subsidiary guarantors under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court held that, in certain situations, such non-debtor releases may be approved and enforced in chapter 15 proceedings based upon principles of comity, even where similar arrangements would be impermissible in a chapter 11 proceeding. 

Companies in the health care industry face many unique challenges when undergoing a bankruptcy, including challenges arising due to the federal and state law framework governing the use and disclosure of medical information. In February 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that it had reached a settlement with the receiver appointed to liquidate the assets of Filefax Inc., a medical record storage and transportation company, resolving claims against Filefax for potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA.