In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

A dispute over whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) can order one of Northern California’s largest natural gas and electric companies – Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) – to reject wholesale power purchase contracts (“PPCs”) will be decided by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (“Bankruptcy Court”), instead of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”).

Law360

Reprinted with permission from Law360

In a Feb. 20, 2019, opinion in In re Titus,[1] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Thomas Ambro, announced a new test for calculating damages in fraudulent transfer actions involving tenancy by the entireties transfers.

Facts

Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?

Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E Corporation (together “PG&E”) filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California on January 29, 2019.

The Bankruptcy Protector

On January 3rd, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an opinion in U.S. v. Parish Chemical Company, in which it addressed the issue of equitable mootness in a non-bankruptcy appeal.

Facts of the Case

Bankruptcy Judges cannot impose additional local chapter 13 confirmation requirements beyond those created by Congress, according to the Southern District of Illinois (the “District Court”).

The recent Supreme Court decision in Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. eliminated any circuit split or confusion over the language of the section 546(e) safe harbor.

At a time when having groceries delivered to your front door is as easy as a couple of taps and swipes on your phone, it is tempting to rely exclusively on the Internet for solutions to all of our problems. However, convenience and adequacy do not always go hand-in-hand, especially when it comes to legal representation. Such is the case with UpRight Law, LLC, a “national consumer bankruptcy law firm.” UpRight relies heavily on non-lawyer “client consultants” who dispense legal advice to clients and help to farm out the cases to local attorneys.

District Court Confirms Bankruptcy Court’s Constitutional Authority to Approve Millennium Plan Releases, Dismisses as Equitably Moot Opt-Out Lenders' Remaining Issues on Appeal