The US Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Kagan, reversed a decision of the First Circuit and held that the rejection of a trademark license agreement under Bankruptcy Code Section 365 (11 U.S.C. § 365) constitutes a breach of the license agreement that has the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy. Therefore, the licensor’s rejection of the license agreement does not rescind or terminate the licensee’s rights under the license agreement, including the right to continue using the mark. Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Case No.

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

The Supreme Court of the United States granted Mission Product Holdings’ petition for certiorari to determine whether a debtor-licensor can terminate the rights of trademark licensees by rejecting its trademark licensing agreements as part of its bankruptcy case. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, Case No. 17-1657 (Supr. Ct. Oct. 26, 2018). The specific question presented is:

The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance claim for a “blocking right” and right of first refusal under a patent transfer agreement, addressing the district court’s proper exclusion of expert testimony on whether the debtor was insolvent at the time of the relevant transfer. In re: Teltronics, Inc., Case No. 16-16140 (11th Cir. Oct. 2, 2018) (Kaplan, J).

A recent federal bankruptcy court decision addresses important principles of fiduciary conduct (and the benefits of a state exculpatory statute) in the context of a financially distressed not-for-profit hospital. 

New Decision Affects D&O Liability

A recent federal bankruptcy court decision addresses important principles of fiduciary conduct (and the benefits of a state exculpatory statute) in the context of a financially distressed not-for-profit hospital.

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 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. 

Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Case No. 16-9016 (1st Cir., Jan. 12, 2018) (Kayatta, J) (Torruella, J, concurring in part, dissenting in part).