In the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“2005 Act”), Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code and Title 28 of the U.S.
The “Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019” (SBRA) signed into law on August 23, 2019 contains two amendments to Chapter 11 preference laws, which are NOT limited to small business reorganizations.
1. Debtors’ Burden of Proof.
A debtor has the right to assume or reject any executory contract or unexpired lease through its bankruptcy, pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code. A trademark license is an executory contract that is subject to assumption or rejection if performance remains due from both parties to the contract.
It is common in a corporate Chapter 11 bankruptcy to sell substantially all of a debtor’s assets. When the sale is supervised and approved by a bankruptcy court, purchasers will be protected from subsequent attacks on the sale or its process.
A debtor has the right to assume or reject any executory contract or unexpired lease through its bankruptcy, pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code. A trademark license is an executory contract that is subject to assumption or rejection if performance remains due from both parties to the contract. A debtor will reject a trademark license if it believes that there is no net benefit to the counterparty to the contract continuing to perform its obligations and thereby will repudiate any further performance of its obligations.
On Friday, August 23, 2019, the President signed into law the first major amendments to the United States Bankruptcy Code since 2005. These promise to change the legal landscape for creditors.
We have written before about the virtual dead end faced by marijuana companies who try to seek protection in the bankruptcy courts. Almost uniformly, bankruptcy courts have shut their doors on marijuana companies, including their landlords and suppliers.
Consider these facts. A debtor in bankruptcy sued two parties for breach of contract. The debtor assigned its rights and interests in the cause of action to another entity. The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the court now lacked jurisdiction over the case. They asserted that the debtor’s assignment of the cause of action destroyed the bankruptcy court’s “related to” jurisdiction. Who wins?
Privacy issues implicate several Bankruptcy Code sections and Bankruptcy Rules. The debtor must also comply with non-bankruptcy rules concerning privacy to the extent that such rules are not inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code. 28 U.S.C. § 959(b).
On August 9, 2019, in a unanimous decision (written by a former bankruptcy judge), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the confirmation of the Peabody Energy Chapter 11 plan (“Plan”)1 with a prominent backstopped rights offering component.