By: Shelley Fredericks
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff
By: Brandon Dorman
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff
By: Denise Dessel
St. John's Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff
By: Arianna Clark
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff
By: Nataniel Arabov
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff
By: Antonia Edwards
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff
By: Taylor Anderson
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff
By: Gabriella Labita
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff
In In Re Relativity Fashion, LLC, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that Netflix was not permitted to stream certain films before they were theatrically released. RML Distribution Domestic, LLC, DR Productions, and Armored Car Productions, LLC (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed for bankruptcy in July 2015 and proposed a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization (the “Plan”), which contemplated the theatrical release of certain movies before Netflix streams them. The Debtors’ release of the films yielded specific financial projections and was a critical factor in the court’s determination that the Plan was feasible as required by the United States Bankruptcy Code. The Debtors petitioned the court to compel Netflix to comply with proposed amendments to Notices of Assignment that were issued under a license agreement between Netflix and the Debtors. The judge’s confirmation order of the Plan approved these amendments, dictating that the payments owed by Netflix under the license agreement were to be assigned to the lenders. Netflix conceded the amendments because the license agreement required compliance as long as the terms did not change Netflix’s rights. Netflix asserted, however, that accordingly to the license agreement it had the right to distribute the films prior to theatrical release.
By: Daniel Quinn
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff
In 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that attorneys at May-er Brown, LLP had inadvertently terminated certain liens granted by General Motors (“GM”) in favor of J.P. Morgan Chase (“JPM”). GM repaid the Term Loan agreement in full in accordance with the bankruptcy court order and therefore made the retirement plaintiffs and Term Loan members subject to clawback provisions under the Bankruptcy Code. The members of the Term Loan agreement and retirement plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Mayer Brown, the law firm responsible for the erroneous termination of liens, for negligent mis-representation and legal malpractice in the United States District Court of Northern District of Illinois.
By: Ryan Dolan
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff
In Ritchie Capital Structure Management Trading, LTD., v. General Electric Capital Corporation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that investors in a debtor’s Ponzi scheme did not have standing to sue the debtor’s lender.