Last Friday, Judge Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied Hybrid Tech Holdings LLC’s appeal of the Delaware bankruptcy court’s decision in In re Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc. et al, to (i) cap Hybrid Tech’s credit bid for Fisker Automotive’s assets, and (ii) require that the assets be sold via a public auction rather than directly to Hybrid Tech in a private sale.

In Jaffé v. Samsung Electronics Company, Limited,1 a Court of Appeals protected the rights of cross- licensees of a German debtor’s American patents by applying the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, instead of inconsistent German law. Specifically, in Chapter 15 U.S. bankruptcy proceedings ancillary to German insolvency proceedings, the administrator notified certain cross-licensees of the debtor’s patents that their cross-licenses were not enforceable under German law. The cross-licensees argued that under U.S. law, they had the option to retain their rights under the cross-licenses.

2014 is expected to see significant legal developments for products manufacturers across industries. Noteworthy issues to watch for the following topics/industry groups are described herein: 

Crisis Management: Have a Plan 

On February 4, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey in In re Surma, 2014 WL 413572 (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2014), held that rents were not property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate because they were subject to an absolute and unconditional assignment of rents in favor of the secured lender. As a result, the court concluded that the debtor may not, through his Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, use or allocate rents.

Background

On January 17, 2014, Chief Judge Kevin Gross of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision  limiting the right of a holder of a secured claim to credit bid at a bankruptcy sale. In re Fisker Auto. Holdings, Inc.,  Case No. 13-13087-KG, 2014 WL 210593 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 17, 2014). Fisker raises significant issues for lenders who  are interested in selling their secured debt and for parties who buy secured debt with the goal of using the debt to  acquire the borrower’s assets through a credit bid.

Recent developments in the bankruptcy arena have placed a greater burden on claimants. Creditors are now required to make additional disclosures in their proof of claim forms, and courts are under no obligation to recognize late-filed claims. Proposed changes to the Bankruptcy Rules, including an amendment slashing the time to file a proof of claim, highlight the need for creditors to exercise extra vigilance.

GREATER DISCLOSURE

Chapter 11 has long been used by companies to obtain relief from legacy tort liabilities. There has been a lingering question, however, as to whether chapter 11 can bar claims by tort litigants who were exposed to a hazardous material or defective product before bankruptcy but do not develop injuries until after the case is over. Some debtors have set up trusts and appointed representatives for so-called “future claimants”: this approach can be effective, but may add months or years to a bankruptcy case along with significant cost, business disruption and litigation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on Jan. 27, 2014 that a lender’s acceleration due to a borrower’s payment default did not trigger a prepayment premium. In re Denver Merchandise Mart, Inc., 2014 WL 291920, *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 27, 2014) (“Denver Merchandise”). Affirming the lower courts’ application of state law, the court held that “the plain language of the contract does not require the payment of the Prepayment Consideration in the event of mere acceleration.” Id. at *5.  

Relevance

Bankruptcy Court Holds Attorney's Signature on Proof of Claim Form Renders Attorney a Fact Witness to Allegations in Proof of Claim, Waiving Attorney-Client and Work-Product Privileges

The power of an appellate court in the federal system to stay the orders of lower courts or to enjoin conduct that lower courts have refused to enjoin, so as to preserve the appellate court’s jurisdiction to review those orders on ultimate appeal, is clearly established yet infrequently invoked. In addition to other potential sources, the power derives from the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.