Seyfarth Synopsis: As OEMs confront the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on an already changing automotive industry, one significant issue will be the inevitable financial challenges that many dealers will face. Financially distressed or, worse, bankrupt dealers, create serious issues for manufacturers and affiliated lenders, including negative publicity, dissatisfied customers, limited or shuttered operations, out-of-trust sales, and litigation.

You’ve been slugging it out with your opponent in state court for years. The end of that hard-fought battle is in sight. Maybe you even hold a judgment already and are taking steps to enforce it. Then, your adversary files bankruptcy, and everything grinds to a halt. You know the automatic stay that arises on account of the bankruptcy filing prohibits you from taking further actions to recover from the debtor outside of bankruptcy court.

Introduction

In complex long-term charters for vessels or finance leases in respect of vessels under the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) and its Article 2A (governing commercial matters relating to finance leases) and under other similar law, a charterer’s or lessor’s damages under a charter or lease— both generally upon a payment default or in the event of a casualty—are often liquidated in stipulated loss value (“SLV”) provisions. These provisions ensure that the lessor/charterer gets the benefit of its bargain.

The Insolvency Working Group of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”⁾¹ has been busy this past year, working on three new model laws and developing work on at least two possible future projects.2 The Insolvency Working Group is responsible for drafting the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the “CBI Model Law”) in 1997, which has since been adopted in 46 countries and is under consideration in several others. In 2005, the United States adopted the CBI Model Law as Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. 

The Supreme Court recently limited the ability of debtors to use contract rejection in bankruptcy to shed unwanted trademark licensees. But the Court acknowledged that the result could change if the trademark licensing agreement had different termination rights. Going forward, parties entering into trademark licensing agreements will need to consider this decision carefully as they negotiate termination rights in the event of a bankruptcy by the licensor.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided yesterday to uphold a licensee’s right to continue using trademarks despite the bankrupt licensor’s rejection of the underlying license agreement. As a result, bankrupt brand owners cannot use bankruptcy law to unilaterally revoke a trademark license. In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.

With the May 1 order, the Commission reaffirms its view that it has concurrent jurisdiction over debtors’ efforts to reject their FERC-jurisdictional contracts in bankruptcy. Further developments in judicial proceedings in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits are expected.

On May 1, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s requests for rehearing of two commission orders asserting concurrent jurisdiction with bankruptcy courts over the disposition of wholesale power contracts PG&E seeks to reject through bankruptcy.[1]

Seyfarth Synopsis: Employers increasingly find themselves in the difficult position of deciding whether to continue garnishing an employee’s wages pursuant to a garnishment order when the employee files for bankruptcy. On one hand, the employer risks penalties for failing to withhold wages; on the other hand, the employer risks sanctions for violating the automatic stay generated by a bankruptcy filing. Below we discuss this dilemma and employers’ options.