When a debtor rejects an executory contract, Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a licensee of intellectual property to retain certain rights under the rejected contract. An important question arises, therefore, whether a particular agreement indeed involves a license. In a recent decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has reaffirmed the definition of a license as “a mere waiver of the right to sue by the patentee.” In re Spansion, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26131, *7 (3d Cir. Dec. 21, 2012) (citing De Forest Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
This is a follow up to our recent blog post discussing then pending Michigan legislation known as the “Local Financial Stability and Choice Act” or Public Act 436 (the “Financial Stability Act”), which will replace Public Act 72 and overhaul Michigan’s emergency manager law. On December 27, 2012, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed the Financial Stability Act into law.
With an increasing number of businesses operating without regard to borders in today’s global economy, the importance of understanding Chapter 15 — the Bankruptcy Code provisions instructing the cooperation between the United States and courts of foreign lands involved in cross-border insolvency cases — has never been greater. This advisory will touch on the scope of Chapter 15 and its attempt to balance comity and domestic legal policy, as highlighted in the recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro SAB de CV, No.
Detroit’s increasingly distressed financial condition has created a dynamic and rapidly evolving situation where the potential of a Chapter 9 filing appears to be the subject of renewed discussion and legislative attention. In particular, state legislation providing Detroit a menu of options for addressing its finances appears headed to enactment this month. Although such legislation includes one option expressly protective of debt service payments on Detroit’s public debt, several of the options may lead to a Chapter 9 filing as a first or last resort.
- Approximately 5,000 Bakery Confectionery Tobacco and Grain Millers Union (BCTGM) members across the country struck Hostess Brands, Inc., to protest the company’s imposition of its last, best, and final contract. That contract, which provided for an 8% wage cut and a 17% reduction in health and welfare benefits, was rejected by BCTGM members in September, but ratified by some 7,500 Hostess employees represented by the Teamsters. In October, Hostess received federal bankruptcy court approval to impose the contract.
Electric vehicle battery manufacturer A123, which received a $249 million stimulus grant from the Department of Energy, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection October 15 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to facilitate an agreement in which Johnson Controls will purchase its automotive business assets for $125 million. The company has drawn down roughly $131 million of its grant, and has faced problems with batteries supplied to Fisker as well as low demand for electric vehicles.
A few weeks ago, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Western District Court of Michigan’s holding in U.S. v. Quality Stores Inc., 424 B.R. 237 (W.D. Mich. 2010), that severance payments made to employees pursuant to an involuntary reduction in force were not “wages” for Federal Insurance Contribution Act (“FICA”) tax purposes. U.S. v. Quality Stores Inc., No. 10-1563 (6th Cir. 2012). The Sixth Circuit’s decision creates a circuit court split with the Federal Circuit and its 2008 decision in CSX Corporation v. United States, 518 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
On September 14, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court's finding that a failed bank's parent did not make a capital maintenance commitment to the bank. After the parent filed for bankruptcy, the FDIC was appointed receiver for the bank. The FDIC then sought payment from the parent under the statute requiring a party seeking reorganization to fulfill commitments to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution.
On August 20th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a trial court's ruling finding that judgments against Ponzi scheme "net gainers" were non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The debtors were early investors in what turned out to be a Ponzi scheme and received more money than they invested. When the Ponzi scheme was uncovered, the state State of Oklahoma sued the debtors for unjust enrichment but not for any securities violations. After the State obtained a judgment on the unjust enrichment claim, the debtors declared bankruptcy.
Since it was decided in June 2011, countless scholars and courts have weighed in on the impact and implications of the Supreme Court’s seminal opinion in Stern v. Marshall.