The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico added its voice to the split in judicial authority on whether a lien or similar transfer can be avoided under sections 544, 547, 548 and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code where only the debtor itself may benefit from the avoidance. Judge Thuma in his recent decision in U.S. Glove, Inc. v. Jacobs (In re U.S. Glove, Inc.), AP No. 21-1009, 2021 WL 2405399 (Bankr. D. N.M.

Michael Traison Chicago/NYC – 312.860.4230

Michael Kwiatkowski Garden City – 516.296.9144

The automatic stay provided under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code is an injunction, arising when a bankruptcy case is filed, which prevents all proceedings or actions against the debtor or the property of the estate without court permission - the so-called “lifting of the stay”.[1]

In American jurisprudence, resolution of disputes often involves the use of important tools to obtain information necessary to achieving a client’s goals. These tools are collectively known as “discovery.” Discovery is most often used in litigation; however, it may also be used as part of the bankruptcy process, without the need for a pending lawsuit.

The imperative “justice, justice shall you pursue” is nowhere better illustrated than in the application of deadlines to perform an act, including filing dates, limitations dates, due dates for filing appeals, and deadlines for filing claims. Courts sometimes exercise their equitable jurisdiction rather than follow the literal language of rules of procedure.

When a debtor files bankruptcy, bankruptcy attorneys and creditors are well aware of the importance of assessing the need for creditors to file proofs of claim and making sure that proofs of claim are timely filed.

On January 12, 2021, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) settled its first civil action for alleged fraud against the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”) – the primary lending program under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act for small businesses negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over the past four years, midstream firms have struggled to adapt their long-standing practices and adjust their long-held expectations, which were fundamentally disrupted by the outcome of the landmark bankruptcy case, In re Sabine Oil & Gas. Midstream providers have since developed and relied on certain mechanisms and carefully drafted contract language in order to bind upstream companies and their successors in interest to obligations and restrictions contained of midstream agreements.

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?

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?