Can a U.S. patent licensee whose license has been rejected by a licensor under foreign law in a foreign bankruptcy rely on the protections of § 365(n) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code? On October 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion addressing this in the Chapter 15 case of Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”).⁵ The bankruptcy court held that the application of § 365(n) to executory licenses to U.S. patents was required to sufficiently protect the interests of U.S.

On Monday, December 12, 2011, Madoff trustee Irving Picard filed a lawsuit against Credit Suisse Group AG in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan alleging it and several of its affiliates harbored money that belonged to Madoff's estate.  Specifically, Picard is attempting to recover $375 million, representing funds that were deposited with Credit Suisse through two of Madoff's largest feeder funds, Fairfield Sentry Ltd.

Investors have agreed to settle securities claims against more than 30 underwriters who underwrote in excess of $31 billion in debt and equity offerings for Lehman Brothers, the collapse of which was a key chapter in the global financial crisis.  The plaintiffs in these actions alleged that the underwriters, which included Bank of America and units of Bank of New York Mellon, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, assisted Lehman Brothers in making misstatements about its finances prior to its implosion and eventual bankruptcy filing.  The proposed settlement still requires district court app

In re Lehman Brothers Inc., Bankr. Case No. 08-01420 (JMP) (SIPA), 2011 WL 4553015 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011)  

CASE SNAPSHOT

Grossman v. Lothian Oil Incorporated, 650 F.3d 539 (5th Cir., 2011)  

CASE SNAPSHOT

In a case of first impression in the Fifth Circuit, the court recharacterized a claim of a non-insider, declining to create a per se rule that recharacterization could only apply to insiders.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In the Matter of Richard Louis Alexander (7th Cir., 2011) U.S. App. LEXIS 17110, (August 16, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In an Order issued yesterday by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in the Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. (Omega) chapter 11 cases, Judge Karen Brown has denied motions to dismiss or convert Omega’s chapter 11 cases or for relief from stay filed by Omega’s Senior Lenders and supported by Omega’s Junior Lenders and Unsecured Creditors’ Committee. In the view of Lloyd’s List, a leading industry publication:

In the course of the next few weeks, Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Omega”), an international shipping enterprise, will find out if motions by certain of their lenders to, among other things, dismiss Omega’s chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings have been granted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.¹ If not, then Omega may be permitted to continue its attempt to reorganize its business under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a memorandum decision in the Lehman Brothers Inc. (LBI) liquidation proceeding confirming the LBI trustee’s determination that certain claims relating to TBA contracts do not qualify as customer claims against LBI’s estate.

In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case known as Stern v. Marshall. The U.S. Supreme Court held that filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case does not constitute consent to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over all counterclaims or actions that the bankruptcy estate may later bring against the creditor.

In fact, filing the proof of claim constitutes consent only to those claims or actions that either (1) stem from the bankruptcy case itself; or (2) are necessary to the resolution of the creditor’s proof of claim.