The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California recently held that the filing of a bankruptcy petition by a borrower can void a trustee sale even where the petition is filed after the trustee sale, so long as the borrower files the petition before the execution of the trustee's deed upon sale. In re: Gonzales 2011 WL3328508 (Bkrtcy. C.D.Cal. August 1, 2011).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that prematurity redemptions of commercial paper made by Enron Corp. shortly before it filed for bankruptcy were protected from avoidance by 11 U.S.C. § 546(e)’s safe harbor for securities transaction settlement payments. In re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa., No. 09-5122-bk (2d Cir. June 28, 2011). In so doing, the Second Circuit resolved a clash between the Bankruptcy Code’s interest in avoiding preferential debt repayment and the securities industry’s interest in preserving transaction finality.

In re Red Mountain Machinery Company, 448 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re XMH Corp., Nos. 10-2596, 10-2597, 10- 2598 and 10-2599 (7th Cir. July 26, 2011)  

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently answered the following questions: (a) whether, under the Bankruptcy Code, a trademark license is assignable (that is, salable) without the licensor’s permission, in the absence of a clause in the agreement stating that it is assignable (NO); and (b) whether a trademark license can be “implied” in an agreement that does not say it’s a trademark license (NO).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Seventh Circuit recently weighed in on the issue of whether a secured creditor has a right to credit bid at the sale of its collateral in connection with a chapter 11 plan of reorganization. In its decision in In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC, Case Nos. 10-3597 & 10- 3598 (7th Cir. June 28, 2011), the Seventh Circuit split with decisions of the Third and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal holding that secured creditors have no such right to credit bid, raising the prospect that the issue may be ripe for review by the United States Supreme Court.

On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that has sent waves through bankruptcy courts across the nation. Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), is the latest opinion in a long running dispute between the estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, better known as Anna Nicole Smith, and the estate of her late husband’s son, Pierce Marshall.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on Aug. 16, 2011, affirmed the lower court’s decision authorizing reimbursement of expenses to qualified bidders for a reorganization debtor’s assets. In re Asarco, LLC, 2011 BL 213002 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2011). In the court’s view, the debtor provided “a compelling and sound business justification for the reimbursement authority.” Id. at *12.

Facts

When an FCC licensee goes bankrupt, the question of how to treat the interests of secured lenders is the one that, from time to time, comes up for debate. Two recent cases deal with this issue – one appearing to be an aberration that would make lending to a broadcast licensee difficult if not impossible, while the second providing a more lender-friendly interpretation after a detailed analysis of the history of FCC and court precedent on this issue, affirming what most in the broadcast community have assumed, for most of the last two decades, is settled law. We

Introduction

The United States Supreme Court recently narrowed the scope of the authority of bankruptcy courts, with potential far-reaching implications on past, present and future bankruptcy matters. The case, Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), began as a dispute between Anna Nicole Smith and the son of her late husband. After several years of litigation and one previous trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled bankruptcy courts lack the authority to enter judgments on counterclaims against a debtor that are based on state law.