On May 20, 2019, in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ---, 139 S. Ct. 1652 (2019), the Supreme Court resolved a split among the circuits, holding that a licensor’s rejection of a trademark license in bankruptcy constitutes a prepetition breach, but does not terminate the license.

Federal law has long excepted student loans from discharge in bankruptcy in all but the rarest instances, recognizing the problems (and costs) associated with allowing borrowers to wipe out defaulted debts through a bankruptcy filing. However, as the issues of access to college and affordability become frequent topics in political discourse, new ideas for radical changes to the treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy have been proposed. Lenders and servicers need to be up to speed on those proposals and ready to adjust their operations if any become law.

On June 7, 2019, Judge Dennis Montali of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of California San Francisco Division found that FERC’s finding that it had concurrent jurisdiction with the U.S. bankruptcy court over wholesale power agreements was “unenforceable in bankruptcy court and of no force on the parties before it.” Judge Montali further noted that if necessary, the U.S. bankruptcy court will “enjoin FERC from perpetuating its attempt to exercise power it wholly lacks.” At issue, on review by the bankruptcy court, was whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

In March 2019, Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that lenders using clear and unambiguous language in their loan agreements may be entitled to prepayment premiums that they would have otherwise forfeited in a borrower’s bankruptcy. In In re 1141 Realty Owner LLC, Judge Bernstein acknowledged the general rule set forth in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decisions in In re AMR Corp. and In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C.

In Witt v. United Cos. Lending Corp. (“In re Witt”), 113 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 1997), the Fourth Circuit held that Chapter 13 debtors are not permitted to bifurcate undersecured home mortgage loans into separate secured and unsecured claims. In re Witt, 113 F.3d at 509. Recently, the Court overruled this twenty-two-year-old decision in an en banc opinion, Hurlburt v. Black, No. 17-2449, 2019 WL 2237966 (4th Cir. 2019).

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 14, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion[i] affirming bankruptcy and district court decisions finding that, under the terms of the confirmed chapter 11 bankruptcy plan, the debtor’s lenders were not entitled to receive over thirty million dollars of post-petition default interest even though the lenders were fully secured.

On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court held in Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a debtor-licensor's rejection of a trademark license agreement does not "deprive the licensee of its rights to use the trademark." This holding resolves a longstanding circuit split in the Federal Courts of Appeal about the effects of bankruptcy on trademark licenses.

Background

On May 20, 2019, in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), the Supreme Court resolved an area of ongoing concern for parties to trademark licenses. The court addressed a circuit split on whether a trademark licensee may continue to use a trademark for the term of the license, after the license has been rejected in bankruptcy.

Earlier this year, PG&E Corporation and its utility subsidiary, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), filed the largest utility bankruptcy in U.S. history, and the sixth-largest corporate bankruptcy ever. As we previously noted, a crucial issue in this case was whether the U.S.