No. 18-988

RPD Holdings, L.L.C. v. Tech Pharmacy Services, dba Advanced Pharmacy Services

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-01-29
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: asset-assumption asset-valuation assumption-and-assignment assumption-assignment bankruptcy-code bankruptcy-sale bankruptcy-trustees collateral-attack executory-contract finality-of-bankruptcy-sales patent-law patent-license
Key Terms:
Patent
Latest Conference: 2019-03-15
Question Presented (from Petition)

This case raises two important issues of first impression under the Bankruptcy Code: what happens to an undisclosed executory contract —frequently a valuable asset, yet deemed rejected if not timely assumed —and what exactly is an executory contract?

1. Is an executory contract that is not scheduled by a debtor automatically rejected under the Bankruptcy Code such that it cannot be assumed and assigned?

2. Where the bankruptcy court has entered a final order providing for the assumption and assignment of an executory contract, does that order control even if the bankruptcy court erred because the executory contract had actually already been rejected?

3. Alternatively to the foregoing issues, what is the proper definition of an executory contract under the Bankruptcy Code?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

What happens to an undisclosed executory contract under the Bankruptcy Code?

Docket Entries

2019-03-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.
2019-02-15
Waiver of right of respondent Tech Pharmacy Services to respond filed.
2019-01-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 28, 2019)

Attorneys

RPD Holdings, LLC
Davor RukavinaMunsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C., Petitioner
Tech Pharmacy Services
Michael Denis WarnerCole Schotz P.C., Respondent