The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, equating a covenant not to sue under a patent with a license, has concluded that a trustee in bankruptcy cannot unilaterally reject the covenant as an executory contract. In re Spansion, Case Nos. 11-3323, -3324 (3rd Cir., Dec. 21, 2012) (Scirica, J.).
Spansion and Apple settled a patent dispute at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) regarding flash memory products, with Spansion agreeing to dismiss its case and to refrain from filing related actions. In pertinent part, the agreement stated:
In a pro-debtor opinion released on February 26, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a debtor may “artificial impair” claims in a class to obtain an impaired and accepting class of claims as required by section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code. Western Real Estate Equities, L.L.C. v. Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P. (In re Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P.), No. 12-10271, 2013 WL 690497 (5th Cir. Feb. 26, 2013).
Statutory Background to the Artificial Impairment Issue
The School Specialty chapter 11 case began in what has become all too typical fashion. The company, overleveraged and short of cash, had no choice but to accept a lifeline extended by its second lien secured lender, a private investment fund. The terms of the debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing
Fashion industry licensees invest substantial sums in reliance on their license rights. Bankrupt licensors have been able to convince courts they can “reject” licenses and, when so doing, thereby cause licensees’ trademark rights to vaporize. Here we discuss why and what a licensee can do.
The Effect of Rejection on Trademark License Rights
As Ohio enjoys its latest boom in oil and gas exploration, it is important to understand how oil and gas leases are treated in bankruptcy. Unsettled Ohio law regarding whether a debtor owns unextracted oil and gas as part of the debtor’s real property can make this a difficult issue.
A recent ruling in the American Airlines bankruptcy case enforcing an automatic acceleration upon bankruptcy provision serves as a reminder that the enforceability of so-called ipso facto provisions in debt instruments remains an unsettled, forum-dependent question.
On January 31, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware confirmed the debtors’ proposed plan of reorganization in In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC,1 declining to “designate” or disallow the votes of several substantial creditors that had entered into a plan support or “lockup” agreement with the debtors after the bankruptcy filing. In a written decision,2 the Bankruptcy Court provided important guidance concerning the permissibility of post-petition plan support agreements entered into before the court approves a disclosure statement.
In re S. White Transp., Inc., 473 B.R. 695 (S.D. Miss. 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re American Capital Equipment, LLC, 688 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In a decision issued yesterday, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that insiders can't be given a special opportunity to invest in a bankrupt debtor under the guise of contributing "new value" unless the debtor makes the same investment opportunity available to other potential investors.