Summary
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut recently examined a question at the heart of an existing circuit split regarding the consequences of trademark license rejection in bankruptcy: can a trademark licensee retain the use of a licensed trademark post-rejection? In re SIMA International, Inc., 2018 WL 2293705 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018).
Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de Reestructuraciones e Insolvencias.
La provisión con cargo a la masa como medida cautelar a favor de un acreedor contingente debe ser material
Auto de la Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona de 3 de abril de 2018
A provision out of assets available to creditors as injunctive relief for holder of contingent claim must actually be material
Decision by Barcelona Provincial Appellate Court on April 3, 2018
On March 14, 2018 the European Commission presented the Second Progress Report on the reduction of non-performing loans (“NPLs”). The report comprises a memo and a factsheet, whose versions in English can be obtained on the website of the European Commission, which also distributed a press release (English version).
El pasado 28 de febrero la Comisión Europea publicó el Borrador de Acuerdo sobre la retirada del Reino Unido de la Unión Europea (“UE”).
On February 28 last the European Commission published the Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (“EU”).
On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.
Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.