On May 17, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York announced that the Official Committee of Consumer Creditors (the “Consumer Committee”) appointed in the In re Ditech Holding Corp. bankruptcy case would not be disbanded. Ditech, supported by the ad hoc group of term loan lenders (the “Ad Hoc Group”), had filed a motion requesting that the Consumer Committee be disbanded or alternatively have a limited scope and budget. After receiving objections from the U.S.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit overruled its own precedent, holding that the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes modification of undersecured homestead mortgage claims—not just the payment schedule for such claims—including through bifurcation and cram down.

As noted in prior posts, the Ninth Circuit opened the door, albeit narrowly, to cannabis company bankruptcies when it issued its opinion in Garvin v. Cook Invs. NW on May 2, 2019. In Garvin, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the confirmation of a plan of reorganization proposed by the lessor to a marijuana growing operation.

After an individual debtor receives a bankruptcy discharge, a creditor may not seek to recover the discharged debt. Under section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, a discharge injunction permanently enjoins creditors from trying to collect discharged debts and prohibits a creditor from collecting any debt where the debtor has been discharged of personal liability.

A recent decision out of the District Court for the Southern District of New York may bring greater certainty to the interpretation of what constitutes a “financial institution” in connection with the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code. The decision, In re Tribune Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69081 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.

The U.S. Supreme Court clarified that a trademark licensor’s bankruptcy may not give it the right to extinguish the licensee’s continued right to use the trademark in accordance with the terms of the license agreement.

THE STATUTE

Several provisions in Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.) were relevant:

The Supreme Court reminded bankrupt debtors on Monday that mere rejection of a contract does not turn back the clock to avoid contractual obligations. This was the thrust of its holding in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, which held that a rejection of an executory contract—in this case, a trademark license—under Section 365(a) constitutes a breach of the contract, not a rescission.

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.

On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC (“Tempnology”) deciding that rejection of an executory contract by a debtor is only a prepetition breach and not a termination of the contract.

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.