Reclamation claimants have long enjoyed special protections under Bankruptcy Code section 546(c), which recognizes that “the rights and powers of a trustee... are subject to the right of a seller of goods,” including reclamation rights under Section 2-702 of the Uniform Commercial Code. At a minimum, Section 2-702 clearly requires that a reclamation claimant must make demand upon its buyer in order to reclaim its goods and protect its rights. However, Paramount Home Entertainment Inc. v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 2010 WL 3522089 (ED Va., Sept.
Yes, but only if the government declines to intervene in the action. United States ex rel. Kolbeck v. Point Blank Solutions, Inc., 1:08-cv-1187 (E.D. Va.), recently addressed this issue.
In September 2010, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a reclaiming seller rights despite the claimant’s service of a timely written reclamation demand and compliance with a reclamation procedures order and section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that:
On April 14, in In re Free Lance-Star Publishing, 512 B.R. 798 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2014), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia considered the objection of Chapter 11 debtors to a secured creditor's right to credit bid at a sale of the debtors' assets pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 363.
Where a document filed under seal in a bankruptcy case has nothing to do with the bankruptcy itself, is the public entitled to access the document? The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia considered this unique question in Robbins v.
A recent ruling in the Chapter 11 case of Free Lance-Star Publishing limited the credit bidding rights of a secured creditor. The ruling has called into question the ability of the holder of secured debt to utilize such debt to acquire companies on a going concern basis in bankruptcy cases, particularly in instances where the debt was acquired at a discount for such expr
A recent opinion out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division) serves as a reminder to secured creditors to steer clear of conduct that a bankruptcy court may deem inequitable and provide the court with cause to limit the secured creditor’s credit bid rights. In In re The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co.
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.
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.
On Oct. 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion with significant ramifications for any holder of a patent license that operates internationally. At issue was an important protection afforded to patent licensees under the United States Bankruptcy Code - § 365(n).