On August 1, 2019 the U.S. Senate passed the Family Farmer Relief Act of 2019, which more than doubled the debt limit for “family farmers” qualifying for relief under Chapter 12 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to $10,000,000. The House of Representatives previously passed the same legislation on July 29, 2019; the legislation will now proceed to the White House for the President’s signature.

In Longoria v. Somers and LC Therapeutics, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0190-JTL (Del. Ch. May 28, 2019), the Delaware Court of Chancery examined its authority to tax the costs of receivership against the stockholder of an insolvent corporation. The Court’s decision highlights an exception to the general principle that stockholders of a properly maintained corporation are not responsible for costs incurred by the corporation and illustrates a scenario where stockholders may be held liable for a corporation’s obligations.

This past May, in a highly-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has the same effect as a breach of contract outside of bankruptcy.

In response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California held that the rejection of wholesale power purchase agreements “is solely within the power of the bankruptcy court, a core matter exclusively this court’s responsibility.” [1]

Over the last two years, much of the healthcare world has been watching the government’s prosecution of Insys Therapeutics for its sales and marketing practices related to its Subsys spray. Subsys is powerful and highly addictive fentanyl spray (administered under the tongue) that was approved by the FDA in 2012 for the treatment of persistent breakthrough pain in adult cancer patients who were already receiving, and tolerant to, regular opioid therapy.

On May 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a debtor-licensor’s ‘rejection’ of a trademark license agreement under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code does not terminate the licensee’s rights to continue to use the trademark. The decision, issued in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, resolved a split among the Circuits, but may spawn additional issues regarding non-debtor contractual rights in bankruptcy.

The Court Tells Debtors, “No Take Backs”

Executive Summary

Last week, the Supreme Court (the “Court”) ruled a debtor in bankruptcy cannot use the Bankruptcy Code to cut off a licensee’s rights under a license to use the debtor’s trademarks. This ruling resolves a Circuit split and brings the treatment of trademark licenses from a bankrupt debtor in line with patent and copyright licenses, which are protected statutorily by Bankruptcy Code section 365(n).

On 27 March 2019, the Federal Court of Australia delivered an important decision demonstrating the Court's willingness to assist liquidators to streamline the procedural aspects of liquidations using technology with the aim of conserving assets for the benefit of creditors.

In a consultation issued by the UK tax authority, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), on 26 February 2019, a change in the order of asset distribution in the insolvency of UK companies has been proposed. The amendments would newly favour certain taxes collected and held by an insolvent entity ahead of certain secured and unsecured creditors and would come into force in April 2020.

Tolstoy warned that “if you look for perfection, you’ll never be content”; but Tolstoy wasn’t a bankruptcy lawyer. In the world of secured lending, perfection is paramount. A secured lender that has not properly perfected its lien can lose its collateral and end up with unsecured status if its borrower files bankruptcy.