The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, applying Texas law, has held that a settlement agreement resolving coverage litigation released the insurer’s obligation for defense costs for certain claims tendered for coverage under a subsequent policy. Nat’l Heritage Found., Inc. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 5331570 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2012).
Two significant changes were made to the Virginia recording tax statutes applicable to deeds of trusts during the 2012 session of the General Assembly. First, the exemption from recording taxes for deeds of trust whose purpose is to refinance an existing debt with the same lender was eliminated. Second, on deeds of trust securing debt in excess of the fair market value of the real estate, the recording tax now may be paid on the value of the property conveyed rather than the amount of the debt.
In re: Qimonda AG, No. 09-14766-SM, Bankr. E.D. Va. (Oct. 28, 2011) [click for opinion]
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.
In today’s lending climate, confession of judgment provisions (“COJ Provisions”) have become a fact of life for the Virginia banker. Indeed, as troubled loans become more prevalent, a properly drafted COJ Provision can often be a creditor’s best friend. No longer can we afford to lump COJ Provisions into that fuzzy “boilerplate” category that we so easily gloss over. More and more bankers are coming to the realization that a COJ Provision is one of the most powerful tools a creditor can have against a defaulting debtor.
On October 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion with significant ramifications for any holder of a patent license that operates internationally. At issue was an important protection afforded to patent licensees under the United States Bankruptcy Code, § 365(n), which limits a debtor's right to reject intellectual property licenses in bankruptcy and generally provides that, in the event of a rejection, the licensee may elect either to treat the license as terminated or retain its rights for the duration of the license.
On Oct. 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion with significant ramifications for any holder of a patent license that operates internationally. At issue was an important protection afforded to patent licensees under the United States Bankruptcy Code - § 365(n).
In re East Coast Abatement Co. Inc. (Bankr. E.D. Va.) Case no. 11-73560
Generally when parties to a dispute work out a settlement they can breathe a sigh of relief and put their differences behind them. OK – it’s a little more complicated than that when one of the parties is a chapter 11 debtor that must seek relief from the bankruptcy court to approve the settlement. But what if a party objects? Things get a bit more complicated. And what if the objecting party has no apparent pecuniary interest at stake? In that scenario, the settling parties can rest a little easier as the bankruptcy court in
U.S. v. Henry, Case No. 08-003 (W.D. Va. July 1, 2008)