On April 19, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, in which the Court considered whether 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) is jurisdictional. A unanimous Court held that § 363(m) is not jurisdictional, determining that the language of the statute “takes as a given the exercise of judicial power over any authorization under § 363(b) or § 363(c).” This determination is based upon the requirement that for a statutory precondition to be jurisdictional, Congress must clearly state the intent.

Boards of directors across the U.S. are currently wrestling with existential threats arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to the logistical and productivity challenges that come with decentralizing entire workforces, entire industries have seen unprecedented decreases in short term demand (or, increasingly, being subject to forced closures as “non-essential businesses”) piled on already-thin margins.

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that bankrupt trademark licensors cannot unilaterally rescind trademark license rights previously granted, resolving a longstanding split among the circuits and providing much needed certainty to intellectual property (IP) licensors and licensees. In fact, the International Trademark Association had dubbed this "the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing."

Chapter 11 Debtor, Tempnology, LLC (“Tempnology”) is feeling the heat today, May 20, 2019, as the United States Supreme Court held that Mission Product Holdings, Inc., (“Mission”), a licensee of Tempnology’s “Coolcore” products, can continue to use Tempnology’s trademarks to sell and distribute its products in the United States. The Supreme Court’s decision resolved a significant circuit split, at least for trademark licensing agreements, as to whether Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code can shield a debtor-licensor from its licensees continued use of licensed trademarks.

On the heels of last year’s Hurricane Irma, everyone is mindful about the upcoming 2018 hurricane season. Last year, Hurricane Irma hit Florida and left about 65% of the state without power. In the months following the storm, businesses in the affected areas often struggled to recover, and it was a more difficult process for some more than for others. Those companies that have relied too much on leverage and stretched their borrowing to the limit may find it difficult to get back on their feet.

Your business now faces an adversary complaint filed by the bankruptcy trustee. The complaint has several counts alleging that your business received fraudulent transfers of assets from a debtor in bankruptcy. The complaint alleges two types of fraudulent transfers. The first is actual fraud, which involves a debtor’s intent to delay, hinder, or defraud its creditors. The second is referred to as constructive fraud, which involves a debtor’s transfer of assets made in exchange for inadequate consideration.

Type of Transferee

The Eleventh Circuit recently reaffirmed the “person aggrieved” doctrine in In re Petricca, 17-10325, 2018 WL 1020046, at *1 (11th Cir. Feb. 22, 2018). The person aggrieved doctrine provides that a person may appeal from a bankruptcy court’s order only if he is a person aggrieved by the order. The doctrine limits the right to appeal a bankruptcy court order to those parties having a direct and substantial interest in the question being appealed.

Ever wonder about bankruptcy appeals; about how long a bankruptcy appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals will take? The answer lies in the Court’s statistical data.

When a person takes an action against an individual debtor in bankruptcy in violation of the automatic stay imposed under Section 362(a) the debtor is entitled to recover damages under Section 362(k)(1) to include costs and attorneys’ fees. An issue regarding the extent of damages to be recovered has centered on whether the fees that shall be awarded are limited to those incurred in ending the stay violation, or if they also include the fees incurred in pursuing the damage award, including defending the award on appeal.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in its recent decision in Town Center Flats, LLC v. ECP Commercial II LLC (In re Town Center Flats LLC), Case No. 16-1812 (6th Cir. May 2, 2017), reinforces an option that commercial lenders in certain states have as a defensive strategy in anticipation of a single-asset real estate bankruptcy involving a defaulted multi-family or hotel loans. The decision is dependent on state law regarding the effect of an absolute assignment of rents and the exercise of the lender’s rights under such an assignment clause.