There is nothing quite like a big sale to a new customer - the prospect of recurring revenue from a new source, the validation of business strategy, or the culmination of a successful negotiation.

However, there is nothing more disheartening than when a new customer is unable or unwilling to pay for the product you just shipped or services you just provided. Perhaps there is one thing that is worse, when a long-term customer fails to pay.

In Momentive Performance Materials Inc. v. BOKF, NA (In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C.), 2017 BL 376794 (2d Cir. Oct. 27, 2017) ("Momentive"), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a long-anticipated decision, affirmed a number of lower court rulings on hot-button bankruptcy issues, including allowance (or, in this case, denial) of a claim for a "make-whole" premium and contractual subordination of junior notes.

[Originally published in the Fall 2017 issue of Artisan Spirit magazine.]

Holders of unclaimed property should take note that Illinois’ state budget bill, SB 9, enacted July 7, 2017, includes significant changes to Illinois’ unclaimed property law. Just days before it was enacted, the Illinois General Assembly amended SB 9 to include a modified version of the Uniform Law Commission’s 2016 Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. Illinois’ new unclaimed property law will become effective January 1, 2018 and will repeal the state’s current unclaimed property law, the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act.

Our Delaware Corporate and Alternative Entity Law attorneys closely follow the opinions coming from Delaware’s Supreme Court and Court of Chancery. Our 2017 Year to Date Review is a collection of brief summaries of selected cases concerning Delaware Corporate and Alternative Entity Law. While this list is a selection of important cases, our intent is to provide our readers with the rationale behind a court’s holding to ultimately provide information that may be helpful in strategic and business decisions concerning litigation and commercial arrangements.

Major changes to bankruptcy rules that govern the administration of consumer bankruptcy cases, and Chapter 13 cases in particular, were recently approved by the Supreme Court and transmitted to Congress.1 After several years of drafting and debate by the rules committee, these rule amendments will become effective December 1, 2017.

Can marijuana businesses receive federal copyright protection?

Yes. The requirements for registration with the U.S. Copyright Office are that the work is original, creative and fixed in some form of expression. These requirements do not prevent a marijuana business from registering its works, such as pamphlets, instructional videos or even artwork.

Can marijuana businesses receive any patent protection?

Exculpation provisions in operating agreements must be carefully crafted in order to protect members, managers, directors and officers for breaches of fiduciary duties. In In re Simplexity, LLC, the Chapter 7 trustee sued the former officers and directors (who were also members and/or managers) for failing to act to preserve going concern value and exposing the debtors to WARN Act claims. The defendants argued the exculpation language in the operating agreements shielded against breach of fiduciary duty liability.

Part 1 of this blog series examined a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a debtor’s legal malpractice claims. See, Part 1. Recognizing that bankruptcy courts typically retain related to jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims against a debtor’s pre-petition counsel, this blog now turns to abstention considerations for a legal malpractice strategy.

The Supreme Court of the United States inMidland v. Johnson reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a debt collector that files a proof of claim for debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if the face of the proof of claim makes clear that the statute of limitations has run. The Supreme Court refused to accept the debtor's argument that Midland's proof of claim was "false, deceptive, or misleading" under the FDCPA.