As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral argument in Oil States Energy Services LLC v Greene's Energy Group LLC, the constitutionality and structure of inter partes review hangs in the balance. In 2011 Congress enacted the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which established the existence of inter partes review proceedings. Inter partes reviews allow private third parties to challenge certain patent validity issues before the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

A recent decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York provides important guidance on the limits of nonconsensual third-party releases in the Second Circuit.[1] SunEdison, Inc. sought confirmation of a plan for itself and its affiliated debtors.

In October 2017, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in In re MPM Silicones (Momentive) LLC, held that a non-consenting class of creditors is entitled to receive post-confirmation interest at a market rate if an efficient market exists to determine such a rate. In reaching its decision, the 2nd Circuit overruled prior decisions by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, which had held that the applicable rate of interest should be determined using the formula method adopted by the Supreme Court in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S.

On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision which, among other things,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ holding that certain noteholders were not entitled to payment of a make-whole premium. The Second Circuit held that the make-whole premium only was due in the case of an optional redemption, and not in the case of an acceleration brought about by a bankruptcy filing.

The Bottom Line

The Third Circuit recently held, in Schepis v. Burtch (In re Pursuit Capital Management, LLC), No. 16-3953, 2017 WL 4783009 (3d Cir. Oct. 24, 2017), that under section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, if a party does not seek a stay pending appeal of a sale order, it is highly likely that any appeal of such sale will be determined statutorily moot. That was certainly the case here.

What Happened?

Background

The Bottom Line

On October 20, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a long-awaited decision in In re MPM Silicones, LLC (“Momentive”) holding that, with one important exception, that the plan of reorganization confirmed by the bankruptcy court comports with Chapter 11. Case No. 15-1682 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2017).

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.

Judge: Rogers

Appellant: Pro Se

Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt

Back in July of 2015, Curtis James Jackson, III, more commonly known as 50 Cent, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, a little over two months after he was ranked fourth in the list of wealthiest hip-hop artists by Forbes. Jackson’s filing came on the heels of a New York state court ruling against him for $5 million in favor of Lastonia Leviston (plus $2 million in punitive damages that were later awarded post-petition) for impermissibly posting a sex tape online.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 20, 2017)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the debtor’s complaint against the lender, which asserted claims related to the lender’s foreclosure of its mortgage lien in state court. The court dismisses the stay violation claim, because the property was not property of the estate at the time of the alleged acts, and dismisses the remaining claims because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtor: Sawin, Shea & Des Jardines LLC, J. Andrew Sawin