The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that the funds in a debtor’s Health Savings Account (HSA) are not excluded from the bankruptcy estate and are not exempt. On the date of his bankruptcy filing, the debtor listed the funds in his HSA as an asset that should be excluded from the bankruptcy estate. He specifically asserted that under 11 U.S.C.
When the Fifth Circuit, in a case of first impression for that circuit and all of its sister circuit, last year ruled in In re Chilton, 11-40377, 2012 WL 762924 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2012) that inherited IRAs constituted retirement funds within the “plain meaning” of §522 of the Bankruptcy Code and were thus exempt from the bankruptcy estate, under § 522(d)(12) (the federal exemptions), many thought the issue was settled.
Appellate panel affirms that creditor’s failure to seek adequate protection before turning collateral over to trustee terminates possessory lien.
On March 25, 2013, the Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order in In re WEB2B Payment Solutions, Inc., holding that a creditor loses its possessory lien when it turns collateral over to the bankruptcy trustee without first seeking adequate protection from the bankruptcy court.
FACTS
The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) for the Eighth Circuit held on March 25, 2013, that a lender “lost its possessory lien when it turned the Debtor’s account funds over to the Trustee without first seeking adequate protection.” In re WEB2B Payment Solutions, Inc., _____ B.R. 2013 _____, 2013WL 1188041, *5 (8th Cir. B.A.P. March 25, 2013) (emphasis added).
Lewis Brothers Bakeries Incorporated v. Interstate Brands Corporation (In re Interstate Bakeries Corporation), 690 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently ruled that a perpetual, royalty-free, and exclusive trademark licensing agreement qualified as an executory contract subject to assumption or rejection under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Eighth Circuit’s ruling is seemingly at odds with a 2010 decision by the Third Circuit which found an extremely similar licensing agreement to be non-executory. These decisions may signal a circuit split on the issue, and in any event, create uncertainty for licensees who have acquired perpetual licenses in connection
One of the most powerful tools a chapter 11 debtor has is the ability to assume or reject executory contracts under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. In bankruptcy parlance, when a debtor “rejects” an executory contract, it is considered as though the debtor breached the agreement as of the date it filed for bankruptcy and sheds the debtor’s obligation to perform under the rejected contract. The non-debtor party receives a claim for damages arising from the debtor’s breach; however, in many cases, it will be worth only pennies on the dollar. The converse of rejection is
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Decision of 9 July 2012, No. 11-3920, Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago AM. MFG. LLC, and United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Decision of 30 August 2012, No. 11–1850, In Re Interstate Bakeries Corp.
The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Seventh and Eighth Circuits came to different conclusions in deciding the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark after rejection or attempted rejection of the trademark license by a bankrupt licensor.
In a case originating out of bankruptcy court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s finding that a perpetual, royalty free, assignable, transferable, exclusive license granted as part of the sale of the business operations, assets and intellectual property associated with two bread baking brands was an executory contract. Lewis Bros. Bakeries Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp., Case No. 11-1850 (8th Cir., Aug. 30, 2012) (Bye, J.).
In what it described as a novel issue of law in the Eighth Circuit (the Federal Circuit including Minnesota and North Dakota), the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) for the Eighth Circuit recently ruled in In re Lewis and Clark Apartments, LP that, in a valuation of the debtor’s low income housing project for purposes of its proposed Plan of Reorganization, the value of the low income housing tax credits (LIHTC) attributable to the project must be included. While this is a result lenders involved in the LIHTC industry may have assumed, it was not settled