The Third Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a blow to secured creditors in its recent decision holding that a debtor may prohibit a lender from credit bidding on its collateral in connection with a sale of assets under a plan of reorganization. In the case of In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, No. 09-4266 (3d Cir. Mar. 22, 2010), the court, in a 2-1 decision, determined that a plan that provides secured lenders with the “indubitable equivalent” of their secured interest in an asset is not required to permit credit bidding when that asset is sold.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the September 15 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in New York by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (LBHI) represents the single largest insolvency proceeding in US history. With assets and liabilities of more than US$639 billion, the LBHI filing dwarfs the previously largest US bankruptcies. The filing comes at a time of significant destabilization in US capital markets and has global ramifications. In an effort to keep our clients abreast of the LBHI situation, we are providing the following general update of significant events in the proceedings:

The Bankruptcy Code gives special protections to licensees of intellectual property when a debtor, as licensor, seeks to reject the license. However, the Bankruptcy Code does not include trademarks in its definition of “intellectual property.” So, are licensees of trademarks given any protection when debtors reject trademark licenses? If the Supreme Court grants a recent petition for writ of certiorari, we may get an answer.

Status: Upcoming/New Filing

Acquirer: HTC Global Ventures, LLC (U.S.)

Acquired: Ciber, Inc. (U.S.)

Value: Approx. US$93 million

Industry: Information Technology

This past November, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas sided with the majority of circuit courts when it held (i) that bankruptcy courts may apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to class proofs of claim and administrative proofs of claim, and (ii) that a putative representative may file a conditional claim on behalf of a putative class that may later be certified.

In an opinion by Judge Roth issued on March 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that two suppliers who had sold electrical materials to a bankrupt contractor had violated the automatic stay by asserting a construction lien against the owner of the development where the contractor had installed the materials supplied.

In a prior post, we examined whether state-licensed marijuana businesses, and those doing business with marijuana businesses, can seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

In Nortel Network’s (“Nortel”) chapter 11 case, In re: Nortel Networks Inc., et al., United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 09-10138(KG), Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross recently reduced the Indenture Trustee’s counsel fees by $913,936.00 in response to heavily litigated objections to the fees by noteholders, Solus Alternative Asset Management LP (“Solus”) and PointState Capital LP (“PointState”) (collectively the “Objecting Noteholders”).

One of the fundamental elements of the American bankruptcy system is the automatic stay under section 362 of the bankruptcy code. The stay protects the debtor and its assets from creditor activity, in order to facilitate equitable treatment of creditors in the collective bankruptcy process. The remedies provided for violations of the stay allow the estate to enforce the protections provided by section 362.

It is commonly understood that, upon commencement of a bankruptcy case, section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code operates as an automatic statutory injunction against a wide variety of creditor actions and activities.