Protections added to the Bankruptcy Code in 1988 that give some intellectual property (“IP”) licensees the right to continued use of licensed property notwithstanding rejection of the underlying license agreement do not expressly apply to trademark licenses. As a consequence, a trademark licensee faces a great deal of uncertainty concerning its ability to continue using a licensed trademark if the licensor files for bankruptcy.
An Analysis of Ohio’s Amended Receivership Law Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP January 2015 © Copyright 2015, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP. All Rights Reserved. vorys.com Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................1 Affected Statutes..........................................................................2 Grounds for Appointment............................................................2 Scope of Receiver’s Authority – “Property Receivers” vs.
In re Trackwell, 520 B.R. 788 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2014) –
The successful bidder at a bankruptcy auction of a ranch claimed that a cattle chute was included in the sold assets. The debtors disagreed. Resolution of the dispute turned on whether the cattle chute constituted a fixture that was part of the real estate.
In Beeman v. BGI Creditors’ Liquidating Trust (In re BGI, Inc.), 772 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the doctrine of “equitable mootness” applied to the appeal of a confirmation order approving a liquidating chapter 11 plan. In a matter of first impression, the court ruled that the standards governing equitable mootness in an appeal of an order confirming a chapter 1 1 plan of reorganization also apply in the context of a chapter 11 liquidation.
In its first bankruptcy decision of 2014 (October Term, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held on March 4, 2014, in Law v. Siegel, 134 S. Ct. 1188 (2014), that a bankruptcy court cannot impose a surcharge on exempt property due to a chapter 7 debtor’s misconduct. In reversing a ruling by the Ninth Circuit, Law v. Siegel (In re Law), 2011 BL 148411 (9th Cir. June 6, 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct.
NOTABLE BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY DECISIONS OF 2014
ALLOWANCE/DISALLOWANCE/PRIORITY/DISCHARGE OF CLAIMS
The recent drop in crude oil prices has been a boon to consumers and businesses alike. However, sustained lower crude prices will invariably have a negative impact on drilling activity in those states where oil and gas development has been concentrated. The current price is below production costs in some locations. Without a prompt recovery in prices, it can be expected that a sustained decrease in oil and gas activity will have an adverse financial impact on the myriad of businesses that provide supplies and services in the oil and gas sector.
We admit, discovery disputes rarely make for titillating blog posts. But a letter ruling issued towards the end of last year by Judge Shannon in Longview Power, LLC et al. v. First American Title Insurance Co. recently caught our eye.
Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, which operates the Cincinnati and Cleveland casinos as well as the Thistledown racino, has filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. However, Ohio’s gambling facilities were not listed in the filing. Newly appointed CFO, Eric Hession, has even stated to the Ohio Casino Control Commission that the bankruptcy filing should have little or no impact on Ohio’s facilities. It will continue to be business as usual.