This past May, in a highly-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has the same effect as a breach of contract outside of bankruptcy.

The Bottom Line

In Gavin/Solmonese LLC, Liquidation Trustee for the Citadel Creditors’ Grantor Trust, successor to Citadel Watford City Disposal Partners, L.P., et al. v. Citadel Energy Partners, LLC, et al., Ch. 11 Case No. 15-11323; Adv. Proc. No. 17-50024 (Bankr. D. Del. May 2, 2019) (“Citadel”), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that creditors of insolvent limited partnerships and limited liability companies do not have standing to sue derivatively on behalf of the company under applicable state law.

In several cases since the seminal 2011 Delaware Supreme Court decision CML V LLC v. Bax, which held that creditors of Delaware LLCs lack standing to pursue derivative claims, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has expanded the jurisprudence regarding the assertion of derivative claims and alternative entities. Most recently, in Gavin/Solmonese LLC v.

On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for holding a creditor in contempt for attempts to collect a debt from someone who previously received a bankruptcy discharge. In Taggart v. Lorenzen, Executor of the Estate of Brown, et al., 587 U.S. ____ (2019), the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and held that the proper standard to apply to bankruptcy discharge violations was an objective standard.

Merit Management

The United States Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision issued on May 20, 2019, settled a split among the Circuits in holding a debtor’s rejection of a trademark license agreement under Bankruptcy Code Section 365 did not rescind the rights of the trademark licensee under the agreement. In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the Court adopted what is known as the “rejection-as-breach” approach, which holds that post-contract rejection a trademark licensee still retains its rights under applicable state law.

This was a Court of Appeal decision which focused on s423 Insolvency Act 1986, as well as the ambit of directors' duties to creditors in a distressed company scenario. The below summary relates to the courts' analysis of the latter issue.

Facts

Appleton Papers Inc (API) was a wholly owned subsidiary of BAT Industries plc (BAT).

A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, Case No. 12-2652, 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2019) (Cote, J.), has re-examined application of the “securities safe harbor” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101–1532, to the transferees of “financial institutions” in so-called “conduit transactions,” following the United States Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 883 (2018).

Attorneys who advise a distressed company usually work very closely with members of the board of directors. A recent opinion from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas provides a cautionary reminder to such attorneys not to lose sight of the fact that, notwithstanding that the company acts through its board, the attorneys’ duties are to the company and not to the individual board members. And, losing focus on the source of the attorneys’ duties may result in exposure to significant liability.

On April 23, 2019, Judge Cote of the District Court for the SDNY, issued an opinion in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation,[i] finding that the Tribune Company, which employed Computershare Trust Company (“CTC”) to handle payments made to shareholders as part of its leverage buyout (“LBO”), would be considered a “financial institution” as defined in