Decision is a Win for Trademark Licensees

Two important and very different decisions regarding public pensions were recently issued by the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Supreme Court of New Jersey. These decisions are significant not only for the workers and taxpayers in these States, but also for the owners and insurers of municipal bonds issued in these States.

ILLINOIS

The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, Case No. 14-115, that a bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a debtor’s proposed plan is not a “final” order that can be immediately appealed. The Supreme Court’s decision implicates practical considerations within the bankruptcy process and the appropriate balance between the bargaining power of debtors and creditors.

Case Summary

On May 4, 2015, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, Case No. 14-115, that a bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a debtor’s proposed plan is not a “final” order that can be immediately appealed. The Supreme Court’s decision implicates practical considerations within the bankruptcy process and the appropriate balance between the bargaining power of debtors and creditors

Case Summary

The Supreme Court of the United States declined[1] to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Jaffé v.

In 2011, the US Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Stern v. Marshall. Turning decades of bankruptcy practice on its head, the Supreme Court held that, even though bankruptcy courts are statutorily authorized to enter final judgments in “core” matters, Article III of the Constitution prohibits them from finally adjudicating certain core matters, such as a debtor’s state law counterclaim against a creditor (so-called “Stern claims”).

• On August 4, 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a Wisconsin federal district court’s ruling on the Wisconsin bankruptcy court’s disposition of three of Telephone and Data Systems’ (TDS) claims, and the FCC’s objections thereto, filed in Airadigm’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan. The principal assets at issue were a series of C- and F-block spectrum licenses for mobile phone service in certain areas of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan that Airadigm had won at auction in the late 1990s.

On April 27, 2009, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on two of three questions presented for review from the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Schwab v. Reilly. Below, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, which held that when the values on a debtor’s list of assets and on her claim of exemptions are equal, a Chapter 7 Trustee must object to a debtor’s claim of exempt property within 30 days in order to retain his statutory authority to later sell property for the benefit of creditors.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit became the first circuit court to rule on the issue of whether a bankruptcy court has authority to retain a case filed in improper venue. The Court found that a bankruptcy court may not retain jurisdiction on a case that was filed in an improper venue. In Thompson v. Greenwood, 507 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2007), the Sixth Circuit follows strict statutory construction in holding that where there is improper venue a bankruptcy court must dismiss the case or transfer it to a district where it could have been brought originally.

On June 16, 2008, the United States Supreme Court held that the stamp-tax exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 1146(a) does not apply to transfers made before confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan. This decision will impact the structuring of asset sales in Chapter 11 cases where the transfers involve significant stamp taxes or similar taxes. Full text of the opinion.