A recent ruling in the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) bankruptcy proceeding highlights the risk to certain renewable energy projects from utility bankruptcy. In a June 7, 2019 ruling, the PG&E bankruptcy court denied the claim that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) must approve any attempt by bankruptcy courts to reject (i.e., void) power project agreements (PPAs) between renewable project owners and utilities. This is in direct opposition to a FERC ruling that it does have this power.
In Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology LLC, the US Supreme Court will attempt to clarify the impact of bankruptcy proceedings on trademark licenses. The court will determine whether or not the rejection of a license in bankruptcy means the licensee’s right to the trademarks is terminated.
Womble Bond Dickinson attorneys Christopher Bolen and Taylor Ey spoke with IPWatchdog on this issue, which the International Trademark Association (INTA) calls “the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.”
Who is the real holder of a FCRA claim brought by a Chapter 7 debtor? That’s the question that confronted the Eastern District of Wisconsin recently in Kitchner v. Fiergola, 2018 WL 4473359 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 18, 2018).
Under the facts of Kitchner, Plaintiff, Megan Kitchner, (“Kitchner”) alleged that the Kohn Law Firm of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (“Kohn”), violated the FCRA and the FDCPA by disclosing her credit score and credit report in a small-claims collection action filed on March 9, 2017.
FTC Amends Telemarketing Sales Rule: On July 29, 2010, the FTC announced new amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule that will prohibit debt relief companies from collecting advanced fees.
Two items of interest in the on-going saga of intellectual property enforcement against bankrupt Collezione Europa and its principals, Paul and Leonard Frankel.
The Bankruptcy Code provides several protections for parties that have supplied goods or services to a debtor on credit prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy petition date.
The following Middle Market insight* originally appeared in the Spring 2015 edition of Disclosure Statement, the official publication of the Bankruptcy Section of the North Carolina Bar Association.
On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court for the United States unanimously held that an order denying confirmation of a plan is not a “final” order subject to immediate appeal as a matter of right.1 Although the Bullard decision involved a plan proposed under chapter 13 to title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the “Bankruptcy Code”), the holding is equally applicable to bankruptcy cases filed under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.