A bankruptcy court in Texarkana, Texas held that breaches by two debtor-franchisees of a non-competition covenant in their franchise agreement with a print shop franchisor qualified for discharge through bankruptcy.  As the court noted, in addition to equitable remedies such as injunctive relief, Michigan law (under which the franchise agreement was governed) allowed for the award of monetary damages as compensation for violation of a non-competition agreement.  Because monetary damages were an available remedy, the court reasoned, the breach of the covenant qualified as a dischar

In June, 2012, Stockton California filed a bankruptcy case under chapter 9.  While businesses and individuals are entitled to file bankruptcy petitions without bankruptcy court approval, the same is not true for municipalities.  They can only be debtors if, among other things, the majority of their creditors agree; they negotiate in good faith and fail to obtain majority agreement; negotiation is impracticable; or a creditor is attempting to obtain a voidable preference.  In addition, the bankruptcy court can dismiss a municipality’s petition if it was not filed in “good fait

In a recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the court adopted a flexible approach to consensual third party releases in a plan of reorganization. In In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 384 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 31, 2013), the court permitted third party releases where creditors failed to opt out of the release provisions of the plan either by not submitting their vote on the plan, or by voting against the plan but failing to check the “opt out” box on the ballot.

In a recent contested matter in the historic cases, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al. (the “Debtors”), Case No.

Until 2013, no circuit court of appeals had weighed in on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the 203 North LaSalle case that property retained by a junior stakeholder under a cram-down chapter 11 plan in exchange for new value “without benefit of market valuation” violates the “absolute priority rule.” See Bank of Amer. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), reversing Matter of 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 126 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1997).

In a recent decision, In re Castleton Plaza, LP, 2013 WL 537269 *1 (Feb. 14, 2013), the Seventh Circuit held that the absolute priority rule – which requires that creditors be paid in full before equity holders receive anything on account of their equity interests under a plan of reorganization – applies equally to the “insiders” of a debtor.

Automotive sales in North America continue to climb, and many suppliers are prospering. However, there are some companies who are struggling and who may face bankruptcy. We have seen companies such as A123 Systems and certain subsidiaries of Revstone Industries recently file for protection under the Bankruptcy Code. How can a supplier to a troubled company protect itself? Must a supplier continue to supply on credit terms? The Uniform Commercial Code may assist such a supplier in this situation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on March 1, 2013, that a bankruptcy court had not erred in applying a prime plus 1.75 percent interest rate to a secured lender’s $39 million claim under a "cramdown" plan of reorganization. Wells Fargo Bank N.A v. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, LLC (In the Matter of Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, LLC), __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 776317 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2013).

When does the selection of a technically correct venue become “unjust”? This was the core question Judge Shelley Chapman was required to grapple with when Patriot Coal and almost 100 of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in New York this past summer. Should it matter that Patriot Coal created the New York subsidiaries, that permitted a New York court filing, about a month prior to the actual bankruptcy filing?

In Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 686 F.3d 372, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of an executory trademark license does not terminate the licensee’s right to use the trademark. The decision creates a circuit-level split that may invite Supreme Court review. However, no final resolution is likely soon. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, denying a petition for a writ of certiorari in December of 2012.