On July 9, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision in Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Mfg., LLC (No. 11-3920), a case that addresses the effect of a bankruptcy trustee's rejection of trademark licenses. For years, the Bankruptcy Code's definition of "intellectual property" has excluded trademarks. But the Code provides very specific guidelines on the treatment of other intellectual property licenses in section 365(n), which was added by Congress in 1988 following the Fourth Circuit's decision in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc.

On May 29, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court  in RadLAX Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank, its first significant Chapter 11 opinion in several years, affirmed the  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s decision in River Road Hotel Partners v.  Amalgamated Bank, prohibiting a debtor from  selling assets free and clear of liens under a plan of reorganization without permitting a secured creditor to credit bid.  RadLAX resolves a circuit split and reverses prior rulings of the U.S.

On May 30, 2012, RG Steel, LLC and various related entities (collectively "RG Steel" or "Debtors") filed petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  According to the Declaration of the company's CFO (the "Decl."), RG Steel enters bankruptcy as the fourth largest flat-rolled steel company in the United States.  At full capacity,  the company can produce 8.2 million tons of steel per year.  Decl. at 2.

The IRS issued proposed regulations providing a limited exception to the anti-cutback rules under Code section 411(d)(6) for a plan sponsor that is a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding. The anti-cutback rules generally prohibit amendments to qualified retirement plans that reduce or eliminate accrued benefits, early retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies or optional forms of benefits.

On July 9, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit significantly strengthened the potential ability of licensees to trademarks, international intellectual property, and other rights to continue to enjoy the benefits of their licenses despite a licensor’s bankruptcy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held on July 9 that the nondebtor licensee of a rejected trademark license may continue to use the trademark (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Mfg., LLC, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 2687939 (7th Cir. July 9, 2012) (Easterbrook, Ch. J.)). The court's clear, concise and no-nonsense opinion explained that Bankruptcy Code ("Code") § 365(g) deems a trustee's rejection to be a "breach" of the contract, enabling "the other party's rights [to] remain in place." Id., at *3.

When a trademark licensor declares bankruptcy, the trustee may reject the trademark license.   The trademark licensee then can lose its rights to use the licensed trademark, which obviously can be a disaster for the licensee.  The Bankruptcy Code protects patent and copyright licensees from this fate, but perhaps by fiat, trademark licensees were left out.  See 11 U.S.C. § 365(n).

In the last two weeks, the 6th Circuit and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals each issued decisions on important intellectual property issues in bankruptcy.

Given the spate of bankruptcies filed over the last few years, including by large-scale tenants such as Borders, Linens 'n Things, and Circuit City, and the tenuous financial condition of big-box retailers such as Best Buy, it is important for both landlords and tenants to understand the benefits and limitations of bankruptcy protection as it relates to the status of a bankrupt tenant’s leasehold interest.

In response to the July 2, 2012 Order of Rehabilitation, and an anticipated Order of Liquidation, against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company and American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, “Lumbermens”),1 we have prepared the following “frequently asked questions” guide summarizing issues related to: (i) the financial regulation of insurance companies; (ii) the liquidation and proof of claim process in Illinois; (iii) potential recovery by policyholders of the amount of “covered” workers’ compensation claims from state guaranty associations; (iv) policyh