In Levin v. Verizon Bus. Global, LLC (In re OneStar Long Distance, Inc.), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18374 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2017), the Seventh Circuit recently addressed a situation where a debtor sought to reduce a creditor’s new value defense in a preference avoidance action.
The long-running litigation spawned by the leveraged buyout of Tribune Company, which closed in December 2007, and the subsequent bankruptcy case commenced on December 8, 2008[1] has challenged the maxim that “there’s nothing new under the sun” even for this writer with four decades of bankruptcy practice behind him.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has issued a decision with significant implications for licensees of trademarks whose licensors become debtors in bankruptcy. In Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, the Court considered whether rejection of a trademark license in bankruptcy deprives the licensee of the right to use the licensed mark.1 Disagreeing with the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v.
The Bankruptcy Code provides that a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization may be confirmed over the opposition of a class of secured creditors whose secured claims are not being paid in full only if it provides one of the following1--
The Bottom Line
In Whirlpool Corp. v. Wells Fargo Bank (In re hhgregg Inc.), Case No. 18-3363 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020), the Seventh Circuit held that a trade creditor’s later-in-time reclamation claim was subordinate to lenders’ pre-petition and debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing liens. The Seventh Circuit found that Sction 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code creates a “federal priority rule,” making clear that a reclamation claim is subordinate to prior rights of a secured creditor.
What Happened?
The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Merit Management Group L.P. v. FTI Consulting Inc. to resolve a circuit split over the interpretation of Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the “safe harbor” provision that shields specified types of payments “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a financial institution from avoidance on fraudulent transfer grounds.
The Bottom Line: