In re Markus, 607 B.R. 379 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019) [click for opinion]  

In recent years, it has become common practice in large chapter 11 cases for debtors to include language in their proposed chapter 11 plan which purports to release certain nondebtors from the claims of third parties. Although some third parties may consent to the release—such as by voting in favor of the plan or otherwise electing to do so during the plan solicitation process—circumstances frequently arise in which the debtors seek approval from the bankruptcy court to release nondebtors from third parties’ claims without the consent of the third parties.

The US Supreme Court has reversed the First Circuit's ruling in Mission Products (Mission Prod. Holdings v. Tempnology, LLC (In re Tempnology, LLC), 879 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 2018)), thereby allowing the trademark licensee in that case to continue using the licensed trademark despite the debtor trademark licensor's rejection of the underlying trademark agreement in its bankruptcy case.

The US Supreme Court has reversed the First Circuit’s ruling in Mission Products (Mission Prod. Holdings v. Tempnology, LLC (In re Tempnology, LLC), 879 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 2018)), thereby allowing the trademark licensee in that case to continue using the licensed trademark despite the debtor trademark licensor’s rejection of the underlying trademark agreement in its bankruptcy case.

In a prior blog post, “Making Sense of The Circuit Split on the Enforcement of Make-Whole Provisions in Bankruptcy,” we discussed the circuit split on the enforcement of a make-whole premium triggered by a bankruptcy petition. Shortly after that post was published, the U.S.

The enforcement of a lender’s claim for a make-whole premium in a chapter 11 case has created significant controversy among legal practitioners and the courts. Notably, the three circuit courts of appeal that have addressed make-whole claims, i.e. the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits, have issued conflicting decisions on the nature of these claims and their allowance under the Bankruptcy Code. In this post we provide a brief summary of make-whole premiums and address the controversy among the circuits.

Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A. (In re Anderson), 884 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2018) [click for opinion]

Corporations reorganize to reduce costs, eliminate liabilities, improve efficiencies or a combination of all three. Rarely, if ever, does a corporate reorganization accelerate a company’s liabilities or impose new ones, but two recent decisions from federal district courts in New York demonstrate careful planning and care is needed to avoid this undesirable and expensive result.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law on December 22, 2017, amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC) and made significant changes to the treatment of individual and corporate taxpayers beginning January 1, 2018. While many understand that the overall corporate tax rate is going down, the specific effects of this tax reform on distressed companies, debtors, creditors, and lenders are still being uncovered. Practical Law asked Patrick M. Cox of Baker McKenzie LLP to discuss his views on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and its potential impact on the Chapter 11 process.

This is part of a series of articles discussing restructuring and insolvency related provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which is now expected to become law this week (the “Act”).

Previously we discussed net operating losses (“NOLs”) and cancellation of the debt (“COD”). The provisions on NOLs have generally remained the same (adopting the Senate version of the revisions, but immediately capping the use of NOLs to 80% of taxable income). However, the changes to COD rules we discussed are not part of the current version of the Act.