This past November, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas sided with the majority of circuit courts when it held (i) that bankruptcy courts may apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to class proofs of claim and administrative proofs of claim, and (ii) that a putative representative may file a conditional claim on behalf of a putative class that may later be certified.
Introduction
Mississippi bankruptcy court holds that agreement encompassing both settlement agreement resolving claims for past-due performance royalties and contemporaneously executed ASCAP licensing agreements is not a single agreement, permitting the debtor to assume the licensing agreements without paying-or curing any default on payment of $400,000 due under the settlement agreement.
In Van Sickle, the plaintiffs each owned a royalty interest in a well that was originally leased by Comanche Oil Company, which later assigned its interests to Athens/Alpha Gas Corporation. Alpha later filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, and the plan was approved without inclusion of the Van Sickles' claims. The Van Sickles sought to hold both companies liable under the doctrine of successor liability for pre-bankruptcy-court-confirmation royalties under the N.D.C.C. § 47-16-39.1, which provides in part:
In an opinion with serious implications for the treatment of overriding royalty interests ("ORRIs"), a Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court ruled that under Louisiana law, an ORRI could be recharacterized as debt rather than a royalty interest, even if the conveyance was facially consistent with an ORRI. An ORRI that is treated as debt would likely have a much lower priority for payment in bankruptcy than an ORRI treated as a royalty interest.
Recent technological innovations and advancements in drilling and completion techniques have led to an unprecedented expansion of natural gas production by large and midsize exploration and production companies. This expansion created competition for wild cat acreage as well as producing properties, putting lessors and co-owners (the “non-operators”) at a distinct advantage in negotiating the terms of leases, farmout agreements and joint operating agreements (“JOAs”).
Background
In a case of first impression, In re Qimonda AG, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Bankruptcy Court”) found that the protections of section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code are available to licensees of U.S. patents in a chapter 15 case even when these protections are not available under the foreign law applicable to the foreign debtor.
In a case of first impression, a U.S. bankruptcy court charged with enforcing the rights of a foreign insolvency administrator against assets in the United States has held that foreign insolvency law may not be invoked to cancel the rights of licensees of U.S. patents.
On October 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion in the Chapter 15 case of Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”).1 The bankruptcy court held that the application of § 365(n) to executory licenses to U.S. patents was required to sufficiently protect the interests of U.S. patent licensees under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code and that the failure of German insolvency law to protect patent licensees was “manifestly contrary” to United States public policy.