In a case of significant importance to licensees of US intellectual property, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held in Jaffé v. Samsung Electronics Co. (In re Qimonda), Case No. 12-1802, 2003 WL 26478864 (4th Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (“Jaffé”), that a bankruptcy court did not err by requiring that the protections of section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code apply with respect to a foreign debtor’s US intellectual property (“IP”) as a condition of granting the debtor’s foreign representative relief under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

A recent Third Circuit reversal paves the way for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) lawsuits based on minor procedural mishaps in bankruptcy court. This contradicts the law in the Second and Ninth Circuits and in many district and bankruptcy courts that previously have found that participation in bankruptcy proceedings is not an attempt to collect a debt and thus not grounds for an FDCPA claim.   

My how time flies in protracted bankruptcy litigation. More than four years ago, as I reported back at the time, the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy case of Qimonda AG issued its first decision on the application of Section 365(n) in that case. After an initial appeal, a four-day trial on remand, and another appeal, last week the U.S.

In In re Eastman Kodak Co., 495 B.R. 618 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) (No. 12-10202), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York permitted a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (Kodak) to assign a previously assumed real estate lease despite the lease’s anti-assignment clause.

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) affirmed¹ the bankruptcy court’s decision in In re KB Toys, Inc.,² and held that a claim that is subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code in the hands of the original claimant is similarly disallowable when that claim is held by a subsequent transferee because the section is applicable to “claims” rather than “claimants.” This holding is in contrast to a prior decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York in

Recently, in connection with the bankruptcy case of KB Toys, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals disallowed a claim held by a claim purchaser, citing that the original holder of the claim had received a preference payment prior to the bankruptcy case.¹ The ruling affirmed an earlier decision of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, which we discussed in a previous memorandum², in which the Bankruptcy Court held that (i) a claim in the hands of a transferee has the same rights and disabilities as the claim had in the hands of the original claimant; and (ii) disabilities attach t

On September 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the Second Circuit) affirmed the rulings of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) in the bankruptcy cases of American Airlines and related debtors (the Debtors) holding that the Debtors do not have to pay a make-whole premium when repaying certain of their outstanding financings (the Indentures).

On November 15, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Glenn, J.) issued a lengthy decision¹ in the Chapter 11 case of Residential Capital, LLC (“ResCap”). An important holding contained in this decision is that the bankruptcy claims of holders of notes issued with original issue discount (or OID) for tax and accounting purposes in a “fair value” exchange (an exchange for notes with a lower face amount) need not be reduced by any unaccreted OID^.2  

A Michigan bankruptcy judge ruled yesterday that Detroit is eligible for protection under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, overruling numerous objections filed by labor unions, pension funds and other interested parties.  Almost immediately following the ruling, a notice of appeal was filed by Counsel 25 of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”).