The Bankruptcy Abuse, Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which was signed into law in the United States on April 20, 2005 and went into effect, for the most part, on October 17, 2005, created a new chapter of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. 101, et seq., as amended) (the “Bankruptcy Code”) – Chapter 15. Chapter 15 replaces and modifies the earlier Bankruptcy Code sections that dealt with multi-national insolvency proceedings.

If you received payments from a now bankrupt entity during the preference period, you may be subject to a Preference Action seeking recovery of all payments during that period. The preference period is most commonly 90 days prior to the date the bankruptcy was filed. While there are defenses, many businesses that receive a Preference Action fail to respond. This may be for a variety of reasons, but most commonly, many businesses do not realize that they have been served. These actions may be served by First Class Mail and there is national service and jurisdiction.

Trademark licensees won a victory on July 9, 2012, when the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC. The opinion holds that the rights of a trademark licensee do not automatically terminate when its license agreement is rejected by a trademark owner in bankruptcy. Nevertheless, the significance of that victory will only become clarified if and when other courts, including possibly the Supreme Court, and Congress address the issues raised in Sunbeam.  

The recent decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in Friedman’s Inc. v. Roth Staffing Cos., L.P. (In re Friedman’s Inc.)¹ should be a reminder of the preference risk that exists for creditors, such as critical vendors, whose pre-petition claims are paid by court order. This article discusses various ways in which this preference risk can be eliminated or minimized.  

The Second Circuit has summarily affirmed a district court’s denial of a petition to vacate an arbitration award, and granted the cross-petition to confirm. We noted in our December 15, 2010 post that the Southern District of New York confirmed the award to Bayou Funds, a group of bankrupt entities which had been run as a massive Ponzi scheme. The district court ruled that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law, even though he did not explicate the reasons for his ruling.

A federal court in West Virginia has ruled that the U.S. government may proceed with a Clean Air Act (CAA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enforcement action, even though defendant and its subsidiaries have filed for bankruptcy. United States v. RG Steel Wheeling, LLC, No. 12-19 (N.D. W. Va. 7/9/12).

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Re IndalexLimited (“Indalex”). The Indalex decision concerned, among other things, the priority of a deemed trust for certain unpaid pension amounts over the super-priority charge granted in favour of a DIP Lender.

Pursuant to a June 27, 2012 tribal resolution, on July 2, 2012, the Santa Ysabel Resort and Casino filed a voluntary chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The casino is an unincorporated enterprise for economic development owned by the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, a federally recognized Indian tribe. After numerous construction problems during the peak of construction pricing, the casino opened in 2007, just before the drop in the economy.

In a recent important decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a trademark licensor could not use its bankruptcy to deny the rights of a licensee to use the trademark pursuant to a pre-bankruptcy agreement. (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-3920, decided July 9, 2012) This decision creates a conflict among the federal circuits, which often means the U.S. Supreme Court must eventually decide the issue.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC,¹ recently issued a decision that holds—contrary to the only other court of appeals that has addressed the issue—that rejection of a trademark licensing agreement by a debtor-licensor does not terminate the agreement and that a trademark licensee can thus continue using the license after rejection.

The Fourth Circuit’s Lubrizol Decision