Bankruptcy Remote? Maybe Not

In re 2408 W. Kennedy, LLC, 512 B.R. 708 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014) –

A commercial landlord sought relief from the automatic stay so that it could complete prepetition eviction proceedings against the debtor. The debtor objected, arguing that it had a right to assume the lease. The case turned on whether the landlord effectively terminated the lease prepetition.

The intersection of bankruptcy law and intellectual property law is not a very nice neighborhood. Anyone dealing with intellectual property license agreements must think about how these agreements are affected if one party to the agreement becomes insolvent. Below are strategies to help parties draft license agreements that will pass through this intersection relatively safely.

Bankruptcy Concepts

Proofs of claim filed against a debtor can be as varied as the claimants themselves. Everything from hand-written notes to hundreds of pages of sophisticated corporate documents has been submitted in support of claims. Matters become even more complicated when the claimant is a foreigner relying on foreign law and foreign language documents. In 

Section 524 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the Code) describes the effect of a discharge of a debtor, and in section 524(e), provides that a discharge of a debtor does not affect the liability of any other entity for the debtor's obligations.  Today, virtually every plan of reorganization or liquidation includes releases for officers, directors and employees of the debtor, affiliates of the debtor, debtor and committee counsel involved in the case, the members of the creditors committee and plan sponsors, among others.

On July 16, 2014, the Uniform Law Commission (the “Commission”) approved a series of discrete amendments to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (the “UFTA”) and renamed it the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (the “UVTA”). The UVTA is intended to address inconsistency in the courts, better harmonize with the Bankruptcy Code and the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), and provide litigants with greater certainty in its application to a fraudulent transfer action.

This article was first published in the summer 2014 issue of NABTalk, the publication of the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees.

For some time, there has been a split among the circuit courts as to whether the Bankruptcy Code permits non-consensual releases of non-debtor entities under a plan of reorganization.

A bankruptcy court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to determine a tax refund claim under Section 505(a)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code where the refund was requested by a liquidating trustee appointed pursuant to a plan, as opposed to a pre-confirmation bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession, the Second Circuit held in United States v. Bond, Docket No. 12-4803 (2nd Cir. Aug. 13, 2014).

In re Demers, 511 B.R. 233 (Bankr. D. R.I. 2014) –

A chapter 13 debtor objected to the portion of a mortgagee’s claim consisting of expenses related to foreclosure of its mortgage. She argued that since the mortgagee failed to comply with notice requirements under the mortgage, the foreclosure expenses were not valid.