Bankruptcy Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction
In the January, 2006, issue of <i>The Bankruptcy Strategist</i>, we discussed the impact of two recent bankruptcy opinions out of the Delaware Court: <i>IT Litigation Trust v. D'Aniella et al.</i> (<i>In re: IT Group, Inc. et al.</i>) and <i>Shandler v. DLJ Merchant Banking, Inc., et al.M.</i> (<i>In re Insilco Technologies, Inc.</i>). We included a brief update in the February, 2006 issue after the Delaware courts weighed in on the subject for the third time in only 3 months. Now we discuss, in depth, the possible implications of <i>Insilco</i> and <i>IT Group</i> on plan structuring.
Recharacterizing Debt
The first half of this article, which appeared in last month's issue, discussed the purpose and effect of recharacterization of debt to equity, distinguished recharacterziation from equitable subordination, and reviewed various approaches, including multi-factor tests, that different courts have employed in determining whether to recharacterize a claim in bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy contexts. This concluding installment explores further the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in <i>In re SubMicron Systems Corporation, et al.</i>, 432 F.3d 448 (3d Cir. 2006) and discusses lessons learned from that case.
Debtors Cannot Assume or Assign Trademark License Without Licensor's Consent
Trademarks serve as symbols of good will and are a valuable asset of the business associated with the mark. Not surprisingly, trademark licenses typically require the licensor's consent for assignments, because licensors want the right to pass on the abilities of new potential licensees. In the event of bankruptcy filing by the licensee, the contractual restriction on assignment is ordinarily unenforceable. <i>See</i> 11 U.S.C. ' 365(f)(1). Bankruptcy Code ' 365(c)(1), however, provides an exception to this general rule: a debtor may not 'assume or assign' any executory contract without consent of the non-debtor if 'applicable law' provides that the non-debtor can refuse to accept performance from a third party.
Integrating Software Escrows into Intellectual Property Strategy
Software developers invest a great deal of time and effort developing complex code that performs unique functionality for which there is a viable market. These software developers typically offer software licenses that only license object code, <i>ie</i>, the code that can be read by a machine, rather than the source code, <i>ie</i>, code that can be deciphered and read by a person.
Are Attorneys 'Debt Relief Agencies' Under The BAPCPA?
According to the newly enacted Bankruptcy Abuse Pre-vention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), attorneys practicing bankruptcy law may in fact be required to identify themselves as debt relief agencies. One of the new and significant aspects of the BAPCPA are the provisions designed to restrict and monitor the activities of so-called "debt relief agencies." Among other requirements, Section 528(a)(4) mandates that a "debt relief agency shall ... clearly and conspicuously use the following statement in such advertisement: 'We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.' or a substantially similar statement." See generally Sections 526, 527 and 528 for the restrictions on and requirements for debt relief agencies. However, who and what a debt relief agency is, and more specifically, whether attorneys are debt relief agencies, remains a matter of great debate, dispute and confusion.
Creditors Take Heed
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in <i>Hefta v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors</i> (<i>In re Am. Classic Voyages Co.</i>), 405 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 2005), recently addressed the issue of whether informal proofs of claim may satisfy a creditor's obligation to file a proof of claim under Rules 3001 and 5005 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The court held that a letter sent by the creditor's attorney to the debtor's claims agent stating that the creditor had sustained a workplace injury and had a claim against the debtor did not qualify as a proof of claim to satisfy Bankruptcy Rules 3001 and 5005. The court held that the bankruptcy court properly denied the employee's motion for relief from the automatic stay to prosecute his claim and the motion to file a late claim.
How the Third Circuit's Recent Decision in SubMicron Systems Alters the Playing Field
Consider the following scenario. A manufacturing company is experiencing significant financial and operational difficulties. A lender provides it with $20 million secured by a second priority lien and, in connection with this financing, is given two seats on the manufacturer's board of directors. For the next 3 years, the manufacturer continues to suffer losses and the lender continues to extend additional financing. By the third year, the lender has selected three of the company's four board members. At this point, the manufacturer is insolvent, undercapitalized and no disinterested third party will lend it additional money. Nevertheless, the lender extends new financing. No notes are issued for portions of this financing, and the lender does not obtain a valuation to determine whether the manufacturer has collateral to support the new financing. Then the lender, not management, negotiates a sale of the company to occur in the context of a pre-negotiated bankruptcy, with the lender to acquire more than 30% of the stock in the newly formed buyer. The manufacturer files a bankruptcy petition and immediately moves for approval of the sale. The buyer credit bids the lender's claim at the section 363(b) sale, and acquires the company's assets over the objection of the creditors' committee. Should the lender's third-year advances -- made while the company was insolvent and undercapitalized and at a time when no disinterested third party would lend money -- be recharacterized as equity? After examining all of the facts and circumstances, the Third Circuit answered no.
IP News
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Recovery of Damages By Bankruptcy Bidders
The sale of a debtor's assets through a bankruptcy court supervised auction process has become more commonplace and, some theorize, under the amended law, may increase in popularity. Often, the process includes the use of a "stalking horse" agreement establishing a baseline of price and other terms for the sale of the assets. In return, the stalking horse bidder obtains certain bid protections (<i>ie</i>, break-up fees and/or expense reimbursements). At the close of the auction, either the stalking horse bidder either places the highest initial (or competing) bid or is outbid, maintaining a claim for the bid protections.
