The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has issued a decision with significant implications for licensees of trademarks whose licensors become debtors in bankruptcy. In Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, the Court considered whether rejection of a trademark license in bankruptcy deprives the licensee of the right to use the licensed mark.1 Disagreeing with the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v.
If a loan or extension of credit requires collateral, banks prefer collateral that is readily marketable rather than taking a security interest in a closely-held business. Occasionally, the only collateral that is available or that the borrower can offer is corporate stock that is not traded on a public market, an interest in a limited liability company ("LLC") or a partnership interest. It is common for closely-held business entities to prohibit an assignment of an owner's interest or require as a condition to an assignment the consent of the other owners of the entity.
On October 16, 2012, the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned decisions of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado that had cast doubt as to whether a lender could enforce a security interest in the proceeds from the sale of a borrower’s FCC broadcast license. The case, Valley Bank and Trust Company v. Spectrum Scan, LLC (In re Tracy Broadcasting Corp.), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21505 (10th Cir. Colo. Oct.
Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a procedure to obtain recognition of a foreign bankruptcy, insolvency or debt adjustment proceeding (a “foreign proceeding”) in the United States. Chapter 15 draws a distinction between a “foreign main proceeding” (i.e., a foreign proceeding pending in a country where the debtor has the center of its main interests) and a “foreign nonmain proceeding” (i.e., a foreign proceeding pending where the debtor has “an establishment”).
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code is a “safe harbor” provision which restricts a debtor’s ability to recover or “clawback” what would otherwise be “avoidable” payments made to creditors. In the recent case of Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Elec., Inc., 690 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2012), the Fifth U.S.
Grogan v. Harvest Capital Co. (In re Grogan), 476 B.R. 270 (Bankr. D. Or. 2012) –
In Grogan, the debtors planted and harvested Christmas trees. The bankruptcy court was called upon to determine whether the debtors could exercise their “strong arm” powers under Section 544(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to trump the liens of two of their lenders on the Christmas trees.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska has held that an insurer may make settlement payments for claims against a debtor’s directors and officers where any claims of the debtor are subordinate to those of the directors and officers under the terms of the policy. The court stated that under these circumstances “the issue of whether the policies are property of the bankruptcy estate is irrelevant.” In re TierOne Corp., 2012 WL 4513554 (Bankr. D. Neb. Oct. 2, 2012).