Business Bankruptcy Issues

Showing: 92 - 98 of 163 Articles
Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Patent Law Collides With Bankruptcy: Federal Circuit Denies Bankruptcy Liquidation Trust Standing To Sue For Patent Infringement

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over, among other areas, patent appeals, so it’s not every day that a Federal Circuit decision appears on this business bankruptcy blog. (Actually, it’s been about a year since this post discussing another Federal Circuit decision.) However, a September 19, 2007 opinion (available here) of the Federal Circuit rested largely on the intersection of patent law and the terms of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. Since the decision denied a trust created under the plan standing to bring the debtor’s patent infringement claims, it’s a significant one for debtors and creditors alike. After discussing the court’s decision I’ll conclude with my suggested take-away from the case.

The At Home Corporation Plan And Liquidation Trusts. The litigation arose in the At Home Corporation Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, which was filed in September 2001. As part of the confirmed plan of liquidation, a general unsecured creditor liquidation trust (called GUCLT) was created to pursue various claims for the benefit of creditors, including certain patent infringement claims against Microsoft Corporation. A separate liquidation trust (called AHLT) received ownership of the At Home patent at issue in the litigation, among other assets. GUCLT was not granted a license to the patent.

The Patent Litigation And Federal Circuit Decision. The patent litigation reached the Federal Circuit in 2006. Although the plan and related documents granted GUCLT the express right to pursue the patent litigation claims at issue, the Federal Circuit found that to be insufficient to confer standing. It held that the patent statutes provide protection to the party with a right to exclude, not the party with a right to sue. Because the right to exclude others from practicing the patent (part of AHLT’s rights) had been separated from the right to sue for infringement (GUCLT’s rights), GUCLT was not protected under the patent statutes. The Federal Circuit summed up the situation this way:

The problem for GUCLT and AHLT is that the exclusionary rights have been separated from the right to sue for infringement. The liquidation plan contractually separated the right to sue from the underlying legally protected interests created by the patent statutes—the right to exclude. For any suit that GUCLT brings, its grievance is that the exclusionary interests held by AHLT are being violated. GUCLT is not the party to which the statutes grant judicial relief. See Warth, 422 U.S. at 500. GUCLT suffers no legal injury in fact to the patent’s exclusionary rights. As the Supreme Court stated in Independent Wireless, the right to bring an infringement suit is “to obtain damages for the injury to his exclusive right by an infringer.” 269 U.S. at 469; see also Sicom, 222 F.3d at 1381 (“Standing to sue for infringement depends entirely on the putative plaintiff’s proprietary interest in the patent, not on any contractual arrangements among the parties regarding who may sue…”); Ortho, 52 F.3d at 1034 (“[A] right to sue clause cannot negate the requirement that, for co-plaintiff standing, a licensee must have beneficial ownership of some of the patentee’s proprietary rights.”).

Since GUCLT had the right to sue but not the right to exclude others from practicing the patent, and since AHLT had the right to exclude others but not the right to sue for infringement, neither liquidating trust could sue for the infringement alleged in the GUCLT’s underlying lawsuit. The Federal Circuit ruled that the problem could not be solved by the typical practice of joining the legal title holder, here AHLT, to the patent litigation as a party. Although such joinder solves prudential standing requirements, the court held that it does not solve the constitutional standing requirement of actual legal injury. GUCLT did not suffer legal injury because it had no right to exclude others from practicing the patent.

The Federal Circuit’s majority opinion prompted an interesting dissent, which ended with the following:

While I do not read any precedent as directly governing the peculiar circumstances of this case, I also do not read any as precluding co-plaintiff standing for GUCLT. I believe that, in denying all possibility for enforcing the patent, the majority opinion extends limitations on co-plaintiff standing without a reasoned basis. Accordingly, while neither GUCLT nor AHLT individually may pursue infringement litigation, I would not deprive the patent of all value. Because I would allow GUCLT and AHLT, as co-plaintiffs, standing to sue Microsoft, I respectfully dissent.

The View From IP Bloggers. Dennis Crouch of the Patently-O patent law blog has an interesting post on the case, and he gets special thanks for first reporting on the decision. For another view, you may find this post from the Patry Copyright Blog published by William Patry, Google’s Senior Copyright Counsel, of interest.

Important Lessons. On his patent law blog, Dennis Crouch gives the practice pointer that he believes patent lawyers should learn from the decision: "A non-title-holder must be granted an exclusive license as well as full litigation rights in order to have standing to sue for patent infringement." That is helpful advice for patent lawyers, but I have a suggestion of my own.

  • When intellectual property such as patents, copyrights, or trademarks is involved in a bankruptcy case, get expert advice from IP counsel, in addition to bankruptcy advice. The problem may be separating exclusionary rights from the right to sue for patent infringement one day and transferring a trademark without its goodwill the next.
  • This suggestion applies when dealing with, for example, the transfer of IP in a bankruptcy case, whether by liquidation trusts, Section 363 asset sales, or something else, or assessing the risk of continuing patent infringement when purchasing IP assets.
  • As the Federal Circuit’s decision shows, the interplay between IP issues and bankruptcy cases can be complex and the possible outcomes surprising. Getting expert advice can help you avoid these and other traps for the unwary.
Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

The Best Of Both Worlds: Can A Secured Creditor Get A Section 503(b)(9) “20 Day Goods” Administrative Claim Too?

In a decision from August 17, 2007, just released for publication, the Ninth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) faced a previously unanswered question under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code, the section enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (known as BAPCPA).  Is a Section 503(b)(9) administrative claim available to secured creditors or only to unsecured creditors? You may find the BAP’s answer surprising.

A Section 503(b)(9) Refresher. For those who haven’t dealt with this relatively new section, here are the highlights. Section 503(b)(9) gives vendors an important right beyond the expanded reclamation claim also enacted as part of BAPCPA. Vendors are entitled to an administrative priority claim for "the value of any goods received by the debtor within 20 days before" the date a bankruptcy petition was filed "in which the goods have been sold to the debtor in the ordinary course of such debtor’s business." 

  • In most cases, particularly Chapter 11 cases in which a plan of reorganization is confirmed, administrative claims are paid in full on the effective date of the plan. General unsecured claims, by contrast, often receive only cents on the dollar, and even secured creditors can be "crammed down" and forced to accept payments over a period of time. This new administrative claim is therefore a significant benefit, in effect putting vendors selling goods to a debtor in the 20 days before the bankruptcy filing on par with vendors selling goods after the bankruptcy filing. It’s available even if a seller of goods fails to provide the required notice to have a post-bankruptcy reclamation claim. 
  • For a more detailed analysis of Section 503(b)(9), you may find this earlier post entitled "20 Day Goods: New Administrative Claim For Goods Sold Just Before Bankruptcy" useful, as well as a later post giving an update on a few early court decisions on the section. 
  • For more on the changes BAPCPA made to reclamation, you may want to read an earlier post entitled "Reclamation: Can A Vendor "Get The Goods" From An Insolvent Customer" and this post on some of the limitations of reclamation.

The Brown & Cole Stores Case. It was against this backdrop that the BAP analyzed the question before it in the In re Brown & Cole Stores, LLC case. Brown & Cole is a privately held grocery chain operating in Washington state. Its principal supplier and wholesaler, Associated Grocers, Incorporated (AGI), is a cooperative whose largest shareholder is Brown & Cole itself. In Brown & Cole’s Chapter 11 case, AGI asserted a "20 day goods" claim of more than $6 million, and also asserted that it was a secured creditor with a pledge of AGI’s own stock owned by Brown & Cole. Brown & Cole alleged a number of claims against AGI and argued that it had a right of setoff on those claims against any "20 day goods" claim.

When AGI moved for allowance of a Section 503(b)(9) claim, Brown & Cole argued that AGI was not eligible for that administrative claim because it was a secured creditor. The bankruptcy court rejected that argument and granted AGI’s motion. It also denied Brown & Cole’s request for a setoff of its own prepetition claims against the administrative claim, among other reasons because of what the bankruptcy court found to be Brown & Cole’s inequitable conduct in ordering goods just prior to its bankruptcy filing.

The BAP’s Decision. After hearing the appeal, the BAP issued its opinion and identified the first question presented as "Is a secured claim entitled to an administrative priority pursuant to section 503(b)(9)?" The opinion’s introduction shows that the BAP was aware of the interest creditors would have in its decision:

This case presents us with an issue of first impression regarding new section 503(b)(9) (“§  503(b)(9)”) of the Bankruptcy Code, as amended in 2005. We expect that the issue is of great importance to many sellers of goods to troubled companies. The new provision gives expense-of-administration priority (“administrative priority”) to a claim for the value of goods received by a debtor within 20 days before the commencement of the case and sold in the ordinary course of business (“twenty-day sales”). The bankruptcy court granted administrative priority to a claim that may also be secured and denied the debtor’s claim of setoff. We AFFIRM the grant of administrative priority; we REVERSE the denial of setoff.

(Footnotes omitted.)

Secured Creditors Are Entitled To Section 503(b)(9) Claims. In reaching its holding, the BAP majority rejected Brown & Cole’s primary argument that the Court should interpret Section 503(b)(9) as applying only to unsecured claims. Brown & Cole argued that at the same time as it added Section 503(b)(9), BAPCPA amended another subsection of Section 503 dealing with tax claims, specifically Section 503(b)(1)(B)(i), to clarify that it was available to "secured or unsecured" creditors.  In contrast, Congress did not include the words "secured claim" in Section 503(b)(9). This difference, Brown & Cole argued, should lead the BAP to hold that the "20 day goods" administrative claim is not available to secured creditors. The BAP’s response was clear:

We reject that invitation. The provision is not ambiguous; as such, we must enforce it according to its terms and should not inquire beyond its plain language. Lamie, 540 U.S. at 534. Apart from finding no ambiguity in § 503(b)(9), we note that Congress also declined to put the word  “unsecured” into the same statute. The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that all claims arising  from twenty-day sales are entitled to administrative priority.

(Footnote omitted). The BAP majority also rejected a policy argument advanced by Brown & Cole (B&C), and adopted by Judge Alan Jaroslovsky in his dissent:

We can do nothing about B&C’s contention that giving priority to a secured creditor may be inequitable to other creditors. First, it is up to Congress to decide which creditors have leverage and which do not. More importantly, if AGI’s twenty-day sales claim is fully secured, then payment of it by B&C will free the value of the security for that claim for the benefit of other  creditors. If AGI’s claim proves to be undersecured or unsecured, then to deny administrative priority would be to ignore the statute, something we cannot do.

In a footnoted response to the dissenting opinion, Judge Dennis Montali, writing for himself and Judge Randall L. Dunn, expanded on the point:

The dissent is concerned that we are ignoring bankruptcy policy that permits a Chapter 11 debtor to “cramdown” a secured claim in full over time. Congress gave tremendous leverage to a twenty-day sales claimant such as AGI by permitting it to demand full payment as of confirmation, and in doing so, perhaps dramatically affecting the outcome of the case. The fact that the claim is also secured represents less leverage (albeit more than held by non-priority general unsecured claims) than having administrative priority. It is not our place to reallocate that leverage. In any event, if the dissent’s view were the law, the holder of a twenty-day sales claim could simply waive its security, obtain administrative priority, and have equally powerful influence over the outcome of the case.

Setoff May Be Proper. The BAP (the dissent joined in this part of the majority opinion) also reversed the denial of Brown & Cole’s setoff request, holding that although prepetition unsecured claims (the kind Brown & Cole asserted against AGI) cannot generally be set off against administrative claims because of a lack of mutuality, here the administrative claim itself arose prepetition, specifically in the 20 days before the bankruptcy filing. On the finding of inequitable conduct in ordering goods and receiving just prior to bankruptcy, the BAP held that there was insufficient evidence of inequitable conduct and that a "debtor contemplating reorganization is under no legal obligation to inform suppliers that it is contemplating a bankruptcy filing." The BAP reversed and remanded that issue to the bankruptcy court.

A Dissenting Voice. Judge Jaroslovsky dissented from what he described as the majority’s "overly-sterile conclusion that a fully secured creditor can also have rights under § 503(b)(9)," stating that "[n]ot only is my statutory analysis different, but I see compelling policy reasons for a different result." He found that the plain language of Section 503(b)(9) did not resolve the question of whether secured creditors could be entitled to the administrative priority in light of the change made to Section 503(b)(1)(B)(i). He then turned to the policy issues:

Moreover, some fundamental policy considerations are at stake in this case. While allowing a priority claim to a secured creditor may not have a big impact in most Chapter 7 cases, it can  make a huge difference in a Chapter 11 case like this one. If AGI’s $6 million claim is entitled to priority status, § 1129(a)(9)(A) requires that it must be paid in full in cash upon confirmation. If  it is treated as a secured claim, it still must be paid in full but is subject to cramdown pursuant to § 1129(b)(2)(A). If we incorporate by implication the “secured or unsecured” language into § 503(b)(9), we may be in effect giving a secured creditor veto power over a plan of reorganization when § 1129(b)(2)(A) and sound bankruptcy policy dictate that a secured creditor can be forced  to accept a plan which is fair and equitable to it, honors its secured status and pays its secured claim in full over time.

I would weave the new § 503(b)(9) into the tapestry of American bankruptcy law, preserving the clear intent of Congress to protect recent suppliers of goods to debtors without unraveling other provisions of the Code meant to facilitate reorganization. I prefer this result to the crazy quilt patched together by my brethren.

In his footnote to the prior paragraph, Judge Jaroslovsky stated: "Specifically, I would hold that a creditor would not be entitled to priority status for its twenty-day sales claim to the extent the claim is indubitably secured, applying any security first to claims other than the twenty-day sales claim. I note that AGI might well end up with an allowed priority twenty-day sales claim under this rule."

More Leverage For Secured Vendors. As both the majority and dissent discussed, a secured creditor who has the benefit of a Section 503(b)(9) administrative claim will have considerable leverage in getting paid in full upon confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan. Most secured creditors lend money instead of supplying goods, but a number of vendors do hold collateral for their claims. Even though BAP decisions (in contrast to Court of Appeals decisions) generally are not binding precedent, other courts may find this decision persuasive. If followed widely, secured creditors entitled to assert a Section 503(b)(9) claim will have a noticeable advantage in getting paid. In addition, as the dissent noted, this decision may also make it more difficult for debtors to confirm Chapter 11 plans unless they have the cash to pay all "20 day goods" administrative claims upon their exit from bankruptcy.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

S&P Warns A Big Increase In Debt Defaults Is Coming

In an article entitled "Defaults wave to hit corporate US," the Financial Times reports that Standard & Poor’s is predicting that $35 billion in corporate debt will go into default by the end of 2008. This is similar to the view taken by Moody’s, reported in a recent post.

According to the Financial Times, S&P believes that the slowing economy, together with liquidity issues caused by credit market problems, puts approximately 75 issuers of junk debt at a high risk of default. These companies are primarily in the media, healthcare, and consumer products industries. Not surprisingly, S&P believes that the default rate could go up significantly if the economy were to decline more than currently predicted.

Struggling companies that took on substantial debt during the recent favorable credit environment “are highly reliant on financial market access to support operational cash needs, but the plentiful liquidity for high-yield borrowers is almost surely a thing of the past,” according to S&P.

Of course, debt defaults frequently lead to Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings. With S&P joining Moody’s in predicting a rise in defaults, the ride could get bumpy from here.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

A UK Perspective On The Turmoil In The Credit Markets

On his Insolvency Blog, Chris Laughton, a recovery and insolvency partner at the UK’s Mercer & Hole firm of chartered accountants, gives a UK and European perspective on the recent gyrations in the credit markets. His new post is entitled "The boom-bust cycle: where are we now?" and it chronicles the progression of the credit crunch from the United States to the UK and beyond. 

After providing links to a number of recent articles from the UK press on the subject, Chris sums up his views:

So what does all this mean? Yes the capital markets are in turmoil, banks are lending much more cautiously and some high risk investment vehicles are failing, but essentially this is only a liquidity problem. Its effect though is that stressed businesses will no longer be able to borrow their way out of trouble as they have become hard-wired to do over the last 3 years.

Crisis cash management and operational and corporate restructuring will come back into vogue as refinancing becomes passé. Only if stressed businesses fail to seek appropriate and timely assistance will the business insolvency statistics really start to rise.

His informative post, and the UK articles highlighted, underscores the interconnected nature of today’s global credit markets. It makes for interesting reading — wherever you are.

Business Bankruptcy Issues The Financially Troubled Company

Are “Termination On Bankruptcy” Contract Clauses Enforceable?

Practically every contract has a provision that makes the bankruptcy or insolvency of one contracting party a trigger for the other party to terminate the contract. These are standard fare and rarely negotiated unless they also include a provision for the reversion back of ownership of property, often intellectual property, upon bankruptcy or insolvency. This post takes a look at these provisions and examines whether they are enforceable.

The Typical Ipso Facto Clause. Termination on bankruptcy provisions are often known as ipso facto clauses (the Latin phrase meaning "by the fact itself") because the language provides that the fact of bankruptcy itself is enough to trigger the termination of the agreement. Here’s a common provision:

This Agreement shall terminate, without notice, (i) upon the institution by or against either party of insolvency, receivership or bankruptcy proceedings or any other proceedings for the settlement of either party’s debts, (ii) upon either party making an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or (iii) upon either party’s dissolution or ceasing to do business.

Variants of this language are found in many types of contracts, including licenses, leases, and development agreements. Some provide that termination is automatic and others first require notice. Termination triggers may include:

  • Filing a voluntary bankruptcy;
  • Having an involuntary bankruptcy filed against a party;
  • Becoming insolvent (frequently the term is left undefined in the contract);
  • Admitting in writing that the party is insolvent;
  • Making a general assignment for the benefit of creditors (a liquidation alternative recognized under the laws of many states); or
  • Tripping a financial condition covenant.

The bankruptcy or insolvency of either party is frequently a termination trigger. However, when the financial condition of only one contracting party is in doubt, the more financially stable party may insist on a one-sided provision allowing it to get out of the agreement upon the weaker party’s insolvency or bankruptcy. 

Notso Fasto: The Bankruptcy Code Stops The Clause In Its Tracks. These termination provisions may be common, but are they enforceable? The short answer, which may be surprising to some, is generally "no." Two key provisions of the Bankruptcy Code lead to this result. First, Section 541(c) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that an interest of the debtor (the bankrupt company or person) in property becomes "property of the estate," meaning that the debtor does not lose the property or contract right, despite a provision in an agreement:

that is conditioned on the insolvency or financial condition of the debtor, on the commencement of a case under this title, or on the appointment of or taking possession by a trustee in a case under this title or a custodian before such commencement, and that effects or gives an option to effect a forfeiture, modification, or termination of the debtor’s interest in property.

11 U.S.C. §541(c). Translated from bankruptcy-ese, this statute means that a clause that terminates a contract because of the "insolvency" or "financial condition" of the debtor, or due to the filing of a bankruptcy case, will be unenforceable once a bankruptcy case has been filed.

A second Bankruptcy Code provision, Section 365(e)(1), governs ipso facto clauses in executory contracts, which are agreements under which both sides still have important performance remaining (discussed in more detail in this earlier post). Section 365(e)(1) provides:

Notwithstanding a provision in an executory contract or unexpired lease, or in applicable law, an executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor may not be terminated or modified, and any right or obligation under such contract or lease may not be terminated or modified, at any time after the commencement of the case solely because of a provision in such contract or lease that is conditioned on—

(A) the insolvency or financial condition of the debtor at any time before the closing of the case;
(B) the commencement of a case under this title; or
(C) the appointment of or taking possession by a trustee in a case under this title or a custodian before such commencement.
11 U.S.C. §365(e)(1). This statute generally makes ipso facto provisions in executory contracts and leases unenforceable.

Why Put Ipso Facto Clauses In Contracts In The First Place? If these termination provisions are generally unenforceable, why do parties seem to include them in almost every contract? There are three main reasons.

Force Of Habit. One reason is that under the old Bankruptcy Act of 1898, replaced by the Bankruptcy Code in 1979, these ipso facto clauses were enforceable. Over the years, lawyers and businesses got used to including them in their contract forms and they have continued to write them into many agreements. Since it’s always possible that the Bankruptcy Code could be changed to reinstate the old rule, lawyers often see little reason to take them out.

It Takes An Actual Bankruptcy. Another and perhaps more important reason is that the rule applies only if a bankruptcy is actually filed. If an ipso facto provision provides that the agreement terminates upon a party’s insolvency, and no bankruptcy case is ever filed, it’s possible that the solvent party could terminate the agreement using the ipso facto provision. But be forewarned: if a bankruptcy case is later filed, an insolvency-based termination made before the bankruptcy filing may not be enforced in the bankruptcy case. This means that the debtor may still have a chance to retain the rights under the contract, including assuming or assigning an executory contract during the bankruptcy case.

A Limited Exception In Bankruptcy. A third reason is that an important, albeit limited, exception to the rule applies even after a bankruptcy is filed. The exception stems less from the ipso facto clause itself and more from the rules governing assumption of certain types of executory contracts, including intellectual property licenses (at least in some circuits).

  • Section 365(e)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, in conjunction with Section 365(c)(1), provides that an ipso facto clause can be enforceable if the debtor or trustee is not permitted by "applicable law" to assume or assign the executory contract. Simply put, if applicable law provides that an IP license or another executory contract cannot be assumed by the debtor or trustee without the other party’s consent, then the non-debtor contracting party can force rejection of the license or seek relief from the automatic stay to terminate the agreement based on the ipso facto clause.
  • Although an analysis of the law governing assumption and assignment of IP licenses and related agreements is beyond the scope of this post, you can find a detailed discussion in an earlier one entitled "Assumption of IP Licenses In Bankruptcy: Are Recent Cases Tilting Toward Debtors?" 

A Word To The Wise. Parties include "termination on bankruptcy" provisions in contracts all the time, despite the general rule making them unenforceable in bankruptcy. Unfortunately, some do so without realizing that the provision may be ineffective, and that can lead to trouble. If enforcing an ipso facto clause is important to one of your agreements, especially if you also seek the highly problematic reversion of intellectual property or other rights upon such a termination, be sure to get specific legal advice on your situation, including whether alternative approaches may exist to help achieve your objectives.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

Is The Default Rate On High-Yield Debt About To Double?

According to Moody’s, the credit rating and investor service firm, the default rate on high-yield or junk bond debt is likely to increase substantially from the current level of 1.4%. Moody’s predicts that the default rate will rise to 4.1% by August 2008 and then to 5.1% by August 2009. 

  • As reported by Credit, Moody’s director of corporate default research believes that "higher spreads and diminished liquidity" have increased the default risk for distressed issuers.
  • Unless the U.S. economy falls into a recession, however, the default rate is predicted to stay below its long-term average of 5.0%, at least until 2009. Any real downturn in the economy could push the default rate higher.

The New York Times DealBook Blog has a similar story, pointing out that Moody’s predicted in another report that the U.S. industries likely to have the highest default rate are packaging, construction, consumer durables, and automotive. Also, companies that need new financing will be more at risk than firms that already obtained financing on the favorable terms available in the credit markets until recently.

As The DealBook Blog points out, a rising default rate will likely lead to an increase in Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings. Stay tuned. 

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments

Another Court Follows The Footstar Decision On Assumption Of IP Licenses In Bankruptcy

Intellectual property licenses continue to be significant to companies across a wide range of industries. This fact makes their treatment in business bankruptcy cases a topic of keen interest. 

Can A Debtor Licensee Retain IP License Rights? When the debtor in possession is a licensee under a patent, copyright, or trademark license, a key question arises: Can the license be assumed (bankruptcy-speak for kept) or will the bankruptcy filing put the licensor in a position to force rejection of the license — resulting in the ultimate termination of the debtor’s right to use the licensed IP?  A new case, discussed below, recently sided with the debtor in possession.

One Statute, Three Tests. This issue has led to a significant split of authority among bankruptcy courts and courts of appeal around the country, stemming from different interpretations of the language in Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. That section provides as follows:

(c) The trustee may not assume or assign any executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor, whether or not such contract or lease prohibits or restricts assignment of rights or delegation of duties, if—

(1)(A) applicable law excuses a party, other than the debtor, to such contract or lease from accepting performance from or rendering performance to an entity other than the debtor or the debtor in possession, whether or not such contract or lease prohibits or restricts assignment of rights or delegation of duties; and

(B) such party does not consent to such assumption or assignment.

Some courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, have sided with the licensor and interpret Section 365(c)(1) to prohibit both assignment and assumption. Other courts, including the First Circuit, have permitted such licenses to be assumed.

  • Despite the split, most courts agree that Section 365(c)(1) prohibits assignment of executory contracts without the non-debtor contracting party’s consent if "applicable law" requires such consent because that would require the non-debtor party to accept performance from a new party. 
  • A number of courts have held that when the "applicable law" is federal patent, copyright, or trademark law, such consent is required.
  • Courts diverge, however, on whether the statute’s language should be read to prohibit a debtor in possession from assuming such executory contracts or only from assigning them.

Rather than cover that ground here, if this topic is new to you I suggest reading an earlier post entitled "Assumption Of Intellectual Property Licenses In Bankruptcy: Are Recent Cases Tilting Toward Debtors?" It discusses in detail how different courts have interpreted Section 365(c)(1), leading to the licensor-favorable "hypothetical test," the debtor-favorable "actual test," and the newer, debtor-favorable Footstar analysis. 

A Word On Footstar. Before moving on to the new decision, a brief word about the Footstar case may be helpful. In In re Footstar, Inc,, 323 B.R. 566 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005), Judge Adlai Hardin of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York took a somewhat different approach in analyzing the statute. He concluded that Section 365(c)(1)’s use of the word "trustee" does not (as other courts had taken for granted) include the debtor or debtor in possession when assumption is sought because assumption does not require the non-debtor party to accept performance from a new party other than the debtor or debtor in possession. A trustee is a new party and the statute logically provides that a trustee may not "assume or assign" such an executory contract.

A Common Scenario. How does this issue come up in Chapter 11 cases? Well, here’s a typical situation. The debtor is the licensee under a prepetition patent license. The patent licensor files a motion to compel the debtor in possession to reject the patent license agreement or alternatively to have the automatic stay lifted to permit the licensor to cancel the agreement. The licensor argues that under the "hypothetical test" interpretation of Section 365(c)(1), the debtor in possession cannot assign the license and, as a result, cannot assume the license either. With neither option open, the licensor argues, the debtor in possession should be compelled to reject the license.

The Aerobox Decision. This was the situation that recently played out in the In re Aerobox Composite Structures, LLC Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Ruling on just such a motion by a patent licensor, on July 27, 2007, Judge Mark B. McFeeley of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico issued an 11-page decision holding that the actual test, and Judge Hardin’s analysis in Footstar, was the correct interpretation of Section 365(c)(1). As such, he denied the licensor’s motion and held that the debtor in possession was not barred by Section 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code from assuming the prepetition patent license at issue in that case. The Bankruptcy Court summed up its holding as follows:

Similarly, the bankruptcy court in Footstar reasons that it makes perfect sense for the statute, which uses the term, “trustee,” to prohibit the trustee from assuming or assigning a contract, because the trustee is an “entity other than the debtor in possession” but it makes no sense to read “trustee” to mean “debtor in possession.” Footstar, 323 B.R. at 573. Doing so

would render the provision a virtual oxymoron, since mere assumption [by the debtor in possession] (without assignment) would not compel the counterparty to accept performance from or render it to “an entity other than” the debtor.

Id.

This Court agrees.

Thus, where the debtor-in-possession seeks to assume, or, as is the situation in the instant case, where the debtor-in-possession has neither sought to assume nor reject the executory contract but simply continues to operate post-petition under its terms, 11 U.S.C. § 365(c)(1) does not prohibit assumption of the contract by the debtor-in-possession and cannot operate to allow the non-debtor party to the executory contract to compel the Debtor to reject the contract. In reaching this conclusion, the Court finds that the “actual test” articulated in Cambridge Biotech, and the reasoning of the court in Footstar, is the better approach to § 365(c)(1) when determining whether a debtor-in-possession is precluded from assuming an executory contract.

Venue Still Matters. The decision is interesting because it represents another bankruptcy court, this time outside of the Southern District of New York, endorsing the analysis in the Footstar decision. That said, Judge McFeeley wrote on something of a clean slate because the Tenth Circuit has not yet taken a view on whether the hypothetical test, the actual test, or the Footstar analysis controls. As this circuit-by-circuit chart of Section 365(c)(1) decisions shows (last updated in March 2007), many other circuits have staked out a position on the issue. Absent a Supreme Court decision or new legislation resolving the circuit split, where a debtor files bankruptcy will continue to make a big difference in the relative rights of licensors and debtors over intellectual property licenses in Chapter 11 cases.