Sutton 58 Associates LLC v. Pilevsky et al., is a New York case which gets to the heart of the enforceability of classic single-purpose entity restrictions in commercial real estate lending. At issue is how far a third-party may go to cause a violation of a borrower’s SPE covenants, and whether those covenants are enforceable at all.

A Defaulted Construction Loan and Frustrated Attempts to Foreclose:

In Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a question that vexed the lower courts and resulted in a circuit split: does the rejection by a debtor-licensor of a trademark license agreement terminate the licensee’s rights under the rejected license?

Taggart v. Lorenzen, No. 18-489

Today, the Supreme Court held 9-0 that a creditor cannot be held in contempt of court for violating a bankruptcy discharge order if there is a “fair ground of doubt” as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.

Creditors and credit furnishers often find properly reporting a payment status to Credit Reporting Agencies (CRAs) during, and after, bankruptcy a challenge. The recent Report of the American Bankruptcy Institute on Consumer Bankruptcy recognizes those challenges, and looks to convene a forum to provide better guidance and clarity as to proper credit reporting once a borrower goes into bankruptcy.

Challenges

In Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC,1 the Supreme Court, in an 8-to-1 decision, held that bankrupt trademark owners cannot use bankruptcy law to unilaterally revoke a trademark license. The Court summarized the question at issue and held that:

Last year, we discussed a decision by Judge Sean Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concerning section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.[1] In a recent cross-border case, In re PT Bakrie Telecom Tbk,

For creditors in bankruptcy proceedings, as with many things in life, priority is everything.  It is often the case that a person filing for bankruptcy has insufficient funds to pay in full all of his or her creditors.  As a result, creditors try to establish their priority so they are more likely to get paid before the money runs out.  Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code provides rules explaining the order in which expenses and claims have priority in bankruptcy.  Notably, Section 507(a)(8) provides the IRS with priority treatment in bankruptcy with respect to claims for

Executive Summary

Last week, the Supreme Court (the “Court”) ruled a debtor in bankruptcy cannot use the Bankruptcy Code to cut off a licensee’s rights under a license to use the debtor’s trademarks. This ruling resolves a Circuit split and brings the treatment of trademark licenses from a bankrupt debtor in line with patent and copyright licenses, which are protected statutorily by Bankruptcy Code section 365(n).

With the recent uptick in energy-related bankruptcies expected to continue for the foreseeable future (in one prominent example, industry giant Weatherford has just filed for Chapter 11 protection), oil and gas royalty owners need to be on alert. Because companies in financial distress usually fall behind on royalty payments, royalty owners, usually one of the largest groups of creditors in oil and gas bankruptcies, tend to have a lot at stake. This blog goes over how oil and gas royalty owners can protect their interests in these tough economic times.

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