A few reactions to today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding the validity of Puerto Rico’s Recovery Act:
“The question that he frames in all but words
Is what to make of a diminished thing.”
Robert Frost, “The Oven Bird”
In a battle over proper venue for the chapter 11 cases of In re Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc.
At the end of “The Candidate”, Robert Redford’s title character, having won, famously asks, “What do we do now?”
A similar question can be asked now that the federal district court in Puerto Rico has struck down the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act.
In the aftermath of recent municipal bankruptcies in which issuers proposed and/or implemented bankruptcy plans involving partial discharges of the issuer’s payment obligation on insured bonds, there has been increased focus on whether municipal bond interest paid by a bond insurer after the bankruptcy plan’s effective date continues to be tax-exempt.
The Bankruptcy Code generally permits intellectual property licensees to continue using licensed property despite a licensor’s bankruptcy filing. However, because the “intellectual property” definition in the Bankruptcy Code does not include “trademarks,” courts have varied on whether trademark licensees receive similar protection. A New Jersey bankruptcy court recently grappled with this issue, concluding that trademark licensees may retain their trademark rights.
On October 29, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing as equitably moot appeals filed by three individuals (the “Appellants”) in the chapter 11 case of In re BGI Inc. f/k/a Borders Group, Inc.
Pennsylvania’s legislature recently approved House Bill No. 1773, an overhaul to its Municipalities Financial Recovery Act, commonly known as “Act 47.” HB 1773 was signed into law by Governor Tom Corbett on October 31, 2014.
Directors of an insolvent corporation face a host of difficult questions. Should they wind up operations or file for bankruptcy to preserve assets for creditors, or chart a riskier course that could lead the company back to profitability and possibly create value for shareholders? If they choose the riskier course and it fails, will the directors be potentially liable to creditors? The opinion issued by Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery earlier this month in Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin, C.A. No. 6990-VCL, slip op., 2014 Del. Ch.
On September 30, 2014, in In re SemCrude, L.P.,1 the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s decision, held that direct partnership distributions by debtor SemGroup, L.P. (the “Debtor”) and indirect partnership distributions by its general partner, SemGroup G.P., L.L.C., to certain limited and general partners could not be avoided as constructive fraudulent transfers.