In March 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided In re Airadigm Communications, Inc. (Airadigm Communications, Inc. v. FCC),1 a case that built upon the Supreme Court’s decision in FCC v. NextWave Personal Communications, Inc (“NextWave”).2 In NextWave, the Supreme Court held that the FCC’s participation in a bankruptcy proceeding is subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

Introduction

In Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (In re Oneida Ltd.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York addressed whether a premium payment created by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (“DRA”)2 for pension plans terminated as part of a chapter 11 restructuring is a pre-petition claim or a post-petition administrative expense. The Court held that the statutorily mandated premium payment was a contingent pre-petition claim and was discharged upon confirmation of the debtor’s plan.

Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that claims for “damages arising from the purchase or sale of . . . a security” of the debtor or an affiliate of the debtor are subordinated to any claims not based on stock. 11 U.S.C. § 510(b). Because there is rarely enough value in a bankrupt company to satisfy all claims, a determination that a particular claim is subject to mandatory subordination under section 510(b) means that, as a practical matter, the claim is unlikely to receive any distribution from the estate.

In Monday’s 7-2 decision in Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States held that the exemption from state transfer and stamp taxes in Section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to transfers that take place prior to the time the Bankruptcy Court confirms a reorganization plan. Section 1146(a) had been cited by bankruptcy debtors and their asset purchasers in seeking tax exemptions for Section 363 sales and other pre-confirmation transfers.

The rapid growth in derivatives as hedging instruments, particularly through equity swaps, credit default swaps ("CDS") and loan credit default swaps ("LCDS"), has challenged fundamental assumptions underlying corporate governance law, federal shareholder disclosure requirements and bankruptcy law. Corporate law has long relied on a "one share one vote" model, which presumes that a shareholder's economic interests in a corporation are inextricably linked to their voting power.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has held that postpetition financing did not receive automatic status as an administrative expense claim under section 346(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, the creditor could not object to confirmation of the Debtor’s plan on the grounds that all administrative expense claims would not be paid in full. In re Mayco Plastics, Inc., 379 B.R. 691 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2008).

A federal bankruptcy court in Florida has addressed an issue of first impression in its district regarding the degree of error necessary to render a financing statement “seriously misleading” under UCC 9-506.

Previously, we have discussed the risks involved in failing to name the debtor correctly on a financing statement. See CRaB Alert, February 2007, p. 14, “Calling Borrower ‘Mike’ Leads To Failure To Perfect.”

A federal district court in Michigan has affirmed a bankruptcy court’s refusal to accept a higher bid for various estate assets because the bid was made after the close of the auction, albeit prior to the hearing to confirm the auction results. Evangelista v. Opperman (In re Sebert), No. 07-15509 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2008).

On June 16, 2008, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court in Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and held that § 1146(a) provides an exemption to state stamp taxes only where a sale occurs pursuant to a plan that has been confirmed, and did not properly apply to a case where the plan was confirmed several months after the bankruptcy court approved the sale.

Intellectual property rights, such as copyrights, trademarks, and patents, are critical to the operation of many businesses. Often the rights to use intellectual property are dependent upon licenses granting a contractual right to the use of the intellectual property. The bankruptcy of an intellectual property licensor can substantially impact the business of the licensee and the continued right to the use of the licensed intellectual property. Similarly, a bankruptcy filing by a licensee may jeopardize important revenue streams, which a licensor of the intellectual property relies upon.