Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

In the recently decided case, Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit took a hardline position that trademark license rights are not protected in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy Code section 365(n) permits a licensee to continue to use intellectual property even if the debtor rejects the license agreement.

InIn Re Lexington Hospitality Group, LLC, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky thwarted a lender’s efforts to control whether its borrower could file bankruptcy. As a condition to the loan, the lender mandated that the borrower’s operating agreement have certain provisions that require the affirmative vote of an “Independent Manager” and 75% of the members to authorize a bankruptcy.

The Delaware bankruptcy court recently decided that a debtor could not assign a trademark license absent the consent of the licensor. The court concluded that federal trademark law and the terms of the license precluded assignment without consent. Because the debtor could not assign the license under any circumstances (consent was not forthcoming), the court held that cause existed to annul the automatic stay to permit the licensor to “move on with its trademark and its business.”

On June 27, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari regarding the decision In re Province Grande Olde Liberty, LLC, 655 Fed.Appx. 971 (4th Cir. Aug. 12, 2016) to decide a circuit split on the applicable standard for debt recharacterization.

Exculpation provisions in operating agreements must be carefully crafted in order to protect members, managers, directors and officers for breaches of fiduciary duties. In In re Simplexity, LLC, the Chapter 7 trustee sued the former officers and directors (who were also members and/or managers) for failing to act to preserve going concern value and exposing the debtors to WARN Act claims. The defendants argued the exculpation language in the operating agreements shielded against breach of fiduciary duty liability.

On January 24, 2017, victims of Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme lost their appeal of a bankruptcy court decision barring them from suing an alleged Madoff co-conspirator because of a third-party injunction contained in a settlement between the alleged co-conspirator and the Trustee liquidating Madoff’s scheme. See A & G Goldman Partnership v. Capital Growth Company (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC), 565 B.R. 510, 514-515 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.

On May 8, 2017, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida entered an order compelling production of attorney-client communications between Regions Bank and its counsel, finding that Regions had put those communications “at issue” by raising a good faith affirmative defense under 11 U.S.C. § 548(c) in response to a fraudulent transfer claim brought against it. Welch v. Regions Bank (In re Mongelluzzi), No. 8:14-ap-00653-CED (Bankr. M.D. Fla. May 8, 2017), ECF No. 319 (Delano, J.) (herein Mongelluzzi).

It is very common for bankruptcy court orders to provide that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce such orders. Similarly, chapter 11 confirmation orders routinely provide that the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over all orders previously entered in the case. The enforceability of these “retention of jurisdiction” provisions, however, will not rest on the plain language in the order but on the bankruptcy court’s statutory jurisdiction.

In First Southern National Bank v. Sunnyslope Housing Limited Partnership, No. 12-17241 (9th Cir. May 26, 2017), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an en banc decision, held that, for purposes of confirmation of a plan of reorganization over a mortgagee’s objection, the value of the mortgagee’s secured claim was the value of the property as low income housing not the value the mortgagee would have received on foreclosure free of the low income housing restrictions.