The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a 2–1 decision affirming the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which reconsidered its prior approval of a $275 million termination fee in connection with a proposed merger. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 18-1109, 2018 WL 4354741, at *14 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018).

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently held in In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC that while Rule 3001 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism for transfers of claims, Rule 3001 is not a substantive provision allowing claims trading for notes with legally valid anti-assignment provisions.

Background

The recent decision of the London Commercial Court in PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov & Ors [2018] EWHC 1314 (Comm) highlights the importance that the Court will attach to full asset disclosure by a respondent to ensure the effectiveness of a freezing order, even in circumstances where the value of a respondent’s assets exceeds the sum frozen by the order.

Freezing Orders: What Are They?

In the recent decision in Carlos Sevilleja Garcia v Marex Financial Limited,1 the Court of Appeal helpfully summarised the justifications for the English law rule against claims for reflective loss and confirmed that the rule applies equally to unsecured creditors of a company as it does to shareholders.

Highlights

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded an Oregon bankruptcy court’s order designating recently acquired claims of a secured creditor for bad faith, holding that a bad faith finding requires “something more.” Specifically, the Court found that a bankruptcy court may not designate claims for bad faith simply because (1) a creditor offers to purchase only a subset of available claims in order to block a plan of reorganization, and/or (2) blocking the plan will adversely impact the remaining creditors.Pacific Western Bank, et al. v.

On June 20, 2018, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware sustained an objection to a proof of claim filed by a postpetition debt purchaser premised on anti-assignment clauses contained in transferred promissory notes. In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, et al., No. 17-12560, at *14 (jointly administered) (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 20, 2018).

Summary

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut recently examined a question at the heart of an existing circuit split regarding the consequences of trademark license rejection in bankruptcy: can a trademark licensee retain the use of a licensed trademark post-rejection? In re SIMA International, Inc., 2018 WL 2293705 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018).

Are Trademark Licenses Protected in Bankruptcy? The Confusion Continues

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut held that while a bankrupt licensor may reject a trademark licensing agreement, the trademark licensee may elect to retain its rights to the debtor’s trademark. The Bankruptcy Court noted that its ruling disagrees with a contrary decision issued by the First Circuit only a few months earlier.

Executory Contracts and the IP Exception

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut held that while a bankrupt licensor may reject a trademark licensing agreement, the trademark licensee may elect to retain its rights to the debtor’s trademark. The Bankruptcy Court noted that its ruling disagrees with a contrary decision issued by the First Circuit only a few months earlier.

Executory Contracts and the IP Exception