LBI Media, Inc., along with seventeen affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 12655).

In re Altadena Lincoln Crossing LLC, 2018 Westlaw 3244502 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.), a California bankruptcy court held that a default interest rate provision was an unenforceable penalty under applicable California law because, among other things, the applicable loan agreements did not contain an estimate of the probable costs to the lender resulting from the debtor’s default.

Background

It happens all too often: a company declares bankruptcy and then the company’s bank, vendors, or other creditors are forced to return a payment that the company made before declaring bankruptcy because the payment was a “fraudulent transfer” under the bankruptcy code. When that happens, the creditor typically files a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case to recover its payment. To succeed, the creditor must show that it provided some benefit to the debtor in exchange for its payment.

In Lone Star State Bank of West Texas v. Waggoner, et al. (In re Waggoner Cattle, LLC), Adv. P. No. 18-02003 (RLJ) (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2018), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas reminded us that creditor’s claims against third parties can confer jurisdiction on a bankruptcy court when the claims could have a conceivable effect on the bankruptcy estate.

• A bankruptcy court in Ohio recently applied the incorrect statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action.
• Ohio’s statute of limitations jurisprudence has evolved from an accepted legal proposition derived from one opinion to supposedly well-settled law stating the complete opposite in another opinion.
• Federal courts interpreting Ohio law must apply the correct statute of limitations to mortgage foreclosure actions.

In the bankruptcy case of In re Fisher, 584 B.R. 185, 199–200 (N.D. Ohio Bankr.

Fairway Energy, LP, along with two subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a chapter 11 petition for relief in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-12684).

It happens all too often: a company declares bankruptcy and then the company’s bank, vendors, or other creditors are forced to return a payment that the company made before declaring bankruptcy because the payment was a “fraudulent transfer” under the bankruptcy code. When that happens, the creditor typically files a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case to recover its payment. To succeed, the creditor must show that it provided some benefit to the debtor in exchange for its payment.

According to the International Trademark Association (“INTA”), “whether a debtor-licensor can terminate a trademark license by rejection, thereby ‘taking back’ trademark rights it has licensed and precluding its licensee from using the trademark” is “the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.” It likely will not stay unresolved for much longer; on October 26, 2018, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari to resolve this specific issue as part of the Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC case.

David’s Bridal, Inc., along with three affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-12635).

Although it may be difficult to define precisely what an “executory contract” is (with the Bankruptcy Code providing no definition), I think most bankruptcy lawyers feel how the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously felt about obscenity--we know one when we see it. Determining that a patent license was executory in the first place was an issue in the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in RPD Holdings, L.L.C. v.