In a recent decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the rejection by a licensor of a trademark license stripped the licensee of its right to use the trademark post-rejection, reversing a decision by the intermediate bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) and reinstating the bankruptcy court’s original judgment. In re Tempnology, LLC, 2018 WL 387621 (1st Cir. Jan. 12, 2018), reversing in part 559 B.R. 809 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2016). The First Circuit did, however, affirm that the rejection stripped the licensee's exclusive product distribution rights.

In August 2019, President Donald Trump signed the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA or “the Act”) into law in an effort to address the fact that small businesses have struggled to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1181-1195 (Subchapter V). The goal of the Act was to make these bankruptcies faster and cheaper for all the parties involved.

The filing of a bankruptcy case imposes an “automatic stay” that protects debtors from creditors attempting to pursue litigation against them. Creditors may in turn ask the bankruptcy court to lift the stay. But if that request is denied, must a creditor wait for months or years until the entire bankruptcy case is over before it can finally appeal the bankruptcy court’s denial of its request to lift the stay?

With very little press, President Trump signed into law the Family Farmer Relief Act on August 23, 2019 (Public Law no. 116-51). The measure increases the current debt limit used to determine whether a family farmer is eligible for relief under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code from $4,411,400 to $10,000,000. By lifting this cap, Congress has provided more farmers, who would otherwise be required to file Chapter 11, with the opportunity to qualify for the specialized relief of Chapter 12.

For almost 30 years, owners and licensees of intellectual property had no firm answer to this important question: if the owner of a trademark rejects a license agreement in bankruptcy, does the licensee then lose its right to use the mark? The United States Supreme Court has now settled that question in favor of licensees in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC (U.S. May 20, 2019), by ruling that the owner may not, by rejecting the license, extinguish the licensee's right to use the licensed mark.

A recent ruling in the bankruptcy case of RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc. (RMH), the second largest franchisee of Applebee’s restaurants with over 160 franchises, highlights the importance of using clear and unequivocal language and action to effectively terminate an agreement before the filing of a bankruptcy. Dine Brands Global Inc. et al. v. RMH Franchise Holdings Inc., et al. (In re RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc., et al.).

Bankruptcy debtors receive a “fresh start” with a discharge of debts, except for certain debts arising from fraud. But in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 2018 WL 1054879 (Feb. 27, 2018) has made it easier for bankruptcy trustees to claw back money received as part of certain transactions, while emphasizing that bankruptcy law still protects the financial institutions that facilitate those transactions. The transfers at issue in Merit Management were not a debtor’s ordinary loan payments to a lender.

Toys “R” Us has offered certain of its landlords an unprecedented payment package in exchange for more time to decide which leases it will keep and which it will dispose of in its chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The package includes payment of “additional rent,” including common-area maintenance, insurance, and real estate tax arrearages under rejected leases, amounts that ordinarily would not be paid in full. The deal may serve as a model for the treatment of landlords in future large retail bankruptcy cases.

On May 15, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5-3) in favor of the debt collection industry, holding that the filing of a proof of claim against a chapter 13 debtor on a debt that cannot be enforced under state law because the statute of limitations on it has expired does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), because filing such a proof of claim is not a “false, deceptive, or misleading representation” or an “unfair or unconscionable” means for collecting a debt, as those terms are used in FDCPA.