The decision provides some additional, though limited protection for licensees of trademarks in bankruptcy proceedings

Introduction

In In re Tempnology LLC,1 the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (the BAP) for the First Circuit provided additional clarity regarding the rights of intellectual property licensees under section 365(n) of the United States Bankruptcy Code,2 particularly with respect to trademark licenses. In Tempnology, the First Circuit BAP concluded that:

Section 365(n) extends only to licenses of "intellectual property" as defined in the Bankruptcy Code,3

On April 1, 2013, Judge Christopher Klein, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, ruled that the City of Stockton, California, could proceed with its chapter 9 bankruptcy filing. Judge Klein’s decision affirmed Stockton’s status as the largest US city (population 300,000) to have successfully sought bankruptcy protection and proceed with bankruptcy.1 Judge Klein’s comments on the record may also signal that the resolution of Stockton’s chapter 9 will require the impairment of the city’s pension obligations.

The Court of Appeal in England has unanimously upheld a first instance decision that a Financial Support Direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator to an entity after it has commenced insolvency proceedings will rank as an expense of the administration, therefore affording it superpriority over floating charge holders and other unsecured creditors. This decision has significant implications for lenders to groups with UK defined benefit pension plans if any of their security is taken as a floating charge.

Prior to the recent collapse in oil values, prices existed at over $100 a barrel for over three years. It made the economics of oil exploration, production and sale comparatively straightforward, but embedded costs into the industry.

On January 31, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion that approved the confirmation of the proposed plan in In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC.

Background

Second Circuit holds that Bankruptcy Code preempts creditors’ state law constructive fraud claims.

On November 27, 2012, Judge Shelley C. Chapman of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in In re Patriot Coal Corporation1 transferring the chapter 11 proceedings pending before her to the Eastern District of Missouri.

This Client Alert addresses the impact on a customer of a futures commission merchant (FCM) with respect to his or her accounts held by that FCM prior to a filing for bankruptcy under Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the Bankruptcy Code) by the FCM.

Summary

Latham & Watkins Benefits, Compensation & Employment Practice June 15, 2015 | Number 1844 FAQ: Recent Developments in US Law Affecting Pension and OPEB Claims in Restructurings (2015)1 From theory to practice, planning to enforcement, the answers to 42 of the most frequently asked questions can help you prepare, cope, or respond to a restructuring. This Client Alert answers some of the most frequently asked questions with respect to the treatment of pension-plan liabilities and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) obligations in US bankruptcies.