Two recent opinions from separate federal courts of appeal upheld the dismissal of lawsuits by sophisticated investors that suffered losses in the auction rate securities ("ARS") market against the securities broker-dealers that allegedly fraudulently induced the purchase of the ARS.1
The Sixth Circuit recently ruled that an agricultural "multi-service finance company" had no claim to the proceeds of produce held in trust pursuant to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act ("PACA")1 and could not circumvent the security interests of a senior lender. The unpublished decision,2 which relied upon established law in the Ninth, Second, and Third Circuits (among others), serves as a reminder to financers in the agribusiness space--and beyond--of the risks inherent in lending in an uncertain economic environment.
Background
Examinership A number of significant decisions were made by the High Court and Court of Appeal relating to different aspects of the examinership process in 2017. |
A Texas bankruptcy court recently ruled that dedication clauses in gas-gathering agreements run with the land and cannot be rejected by a debtor. That decision, In re Alta Mesa Resources, Inc., affirms an industrywide practice that faced an uncertain future following the ruling in In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp. from the Southern District of New York, which was upheld by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018.
In Mission Product Holdings, the Supreme Court Endorses “Rejection-as-Breach” Rule and Interprets Broadly the Contract Rights that Survive Rejection
"When licensing trademark rights, you need to think about a host of issues at the outset including the impact of a licensor declaring bankruptcy."
The West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (“WVCCPA”) is a remedial statute designed to protect West Virginia consumers from improper debt collection. Only “consumers” have standing to file a lawsuit under the WVCCPA. The term “consumer” is defined as a natural person that owes a debt or allegedly owes a debt. But does a person still owe debt if that debt was discharged by a bankruptcy court? Although there is some conflicting case law in West Virginia, an answer is forming.
On Friday, October 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in what could be a landmark decision concerning trademark issues in bankruptcy. In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, the Court will resolve a Circuit Court split and determine whether a debtor-licensor can strip away the rights of its trademark licensees by rejecting its trademark licensing agreements as part of its bankruptcy case.
The Bankruptcy Code provides bankruptcy trustees, debtors, and creditor committees with “avoidance powers” that allow them to set aside and recover certain transfers that a debtor made before filing for bankruptcy.[1] These avoidance powers are, however, limited by a number of exceptions enumerated in the Bankruptcy Code, including the securities safe harbor at § 546(e). Section 546(e) protects from avoidance any transfer “made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . .
A decision from the United States Supreme Court penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor adopted a broad reading of “actual fraud” in section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, which excepts from discharge debts “obtained by . . .