On October 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a debt collection law firm and attorney (collectively, “defendants”) in an action alleging the defendants violated the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the FDCPA.

In In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 2019 WL 2535700 (3d Cir. June 19, 2019), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that adequate protection payments made during a bankruptcy case and distributions under a chapter 11 plan are not distributions of collateral for purposes of a "waterfall" provision in an intercreditor agreement.

Intercreditor and Subordination Agreements

Background

Following various disputes as to the scope of the collateral given to secured creditors, the debtors and certain of their noteholders jointly proposed a chapter 11. The plan included a rights offering that the consenting noteholders agreed to backstop. These consenting noteholders were granted the right to purchase significant equity of the reorganized debtors at a discount and receive significant premiums for their agreement to backstop the rights offering and support the plan.

In Trinity 83 Dev., LLC v. ColFin Midwest Funding, LLC, 917 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code does not moot an appeal involving a dispute over the proceeds of a sale of assets in bankruptcy. In concluding that section 363(m) does not moot such an appeal, but merely provides the purchaser with a defense in litigation challenging the sale, the Seventh Circuit overruled its prior decision on the scope of section 363(m) in In re River West Plaza-Chicago, LLC, 664 F.3d 668 (7th Cir.

On June 19, 2019, the U.S.

In an 8–1 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and held that rejection of a trademark license in bankruptcy constitutes a breach of the license agreement, which has the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy. Therefore, a licensor’s rejection of a trademark license agreement does not rescind or terminate the licensee’s rights under the agreement, including the right to continue using the mark. Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Case No. 17-1657 (S. Ct.

In March 2019, Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that lenders using clear and unambiguous language in their loan agreements may be entitled to prepayment premiums that they would have otherwise forfeited in a borrower’s bankruptcy. In In re 1141 Realty Owner LLC, Judge Bernstein acknowledged the general rule set forth in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decisions in In re AMR Corp. and In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C.

In SummitBridge Nat’l Invs. III, LLC v. Faison, 915 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that an unsecured or undersecured creditor may include postpetition attorney’s fees and costs as part of its allowed claim in a bankruptcy case.

Unsecured Creditors and Postpetition Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Bankruptcy protection under Section 365 does not give brand owners/debtor-licensors the unilateral right to rescind trademark licensing agreements.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit allowed a secured creditor to retain its lien and therefore the proceeds from a sale, even after the secured creditor mistakenly released its mortgage lien. The case is Trinity 83 Development, LLC v. ColFin Midwest Funding, LLC (In re Trinity Development, LLC), slip. op. (7th Cir. March 1, 2019).