Certain licensees of intellectual property are expressly given expanded rights when their licensors file bankruptcy. But what about trademark licensees? Trademarks are not among the defined categories of “intellectual property” for bankruptcy purposes. Nonetheless, are trademark licensees otherwise protected in a licensor bankruptcy? Unfortunately for these licensees, a recent circuit court decision put the brakes on attempts to expand protection to licensees of trademarks.

In a prior post, we examined whether state-licensed marijuana businesses, and those doing business with marijuana businesses, can seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

As more and more states pass laws allowing the sale of marijuana, whether for medicinal or recreational purposes, investors will try to claim their share of what is certainly going to be a lucrative market. However, even in a growing market, private enterprises fail or need restructuring. This raises the question of whether distressed marijuana businesses, and those doing business with marijuana businesses, can seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

Last Friday, October 13, Judge Sean H. Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion addressing the presumption against extraterritoriality of US law as well as the limits of the doctrine of international comity.

For decades, restructuring and insolvency matters in the Dominican Republic involving merchants and companies in non-regulated industries have been carried out on a “de facto” basis, due to the obsolescence of the existing legal framework and institutions. Fortunately, that is not the case anymore.

Late last month, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari review of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in PEM Entities LLC v. Eric M. Levin & Howard Shareff. At issue in PEM Entities is whether a debt claim held by existing equity investors should be recharacterized as equity. The Supreme Court is now poised to resolve a split among the federal circuits concerning whether federal or state law should govern debt recharacterization claims.

We have written in the past about the doctrine of equitable mootness. A March 30, 2017 per curiam affirmance by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Beem v. Ferguson (In re Ferguson) explores the concept and limitations of equitable mootness and distinguishes it from the related doctrine of constitutional mootness.

Rian Matthews and Kate Ballantine-Dykes from Baker McKenzie have published an article entitled “Common law to the rescue: bridging gaps in international and domestic restructuring and insolvency regimes” in Corporate Rescue and Insolvency.

The giants of Asia – Indonesia, China, and India – raise many opportunities and challenges for insolvency practitioners. Baker McKenzie’s own Andi Kadir spoke this morning about some of the solutions to those problems, showcasing his significant experience with insolvency reforms and opportunities in Indonesia.

Andi highlighted the benefits of the Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang regime as a restructuring tool in Indonesia. A PKPU is a debtor in possession mechanism, somewhat like a blend of a US Chapter 11 administration with aspects of the insolvency laws of the Netherlands.

Billed as INSOL’s “most popular session”, the plenary session Hot Topics – Avoid Being Burnt! provided a brief overview of developments in the insolvency landscape. The session panel was chaired by Jay A. Carfagnini (Goodmans LLP) with panelists the Honourable Justice Paul Heath of the High Court of New Zealand, Gabriel Moss QC, Gaurav Malhorta (Ernst & Young), and Jason Karas (Lipman Karas).

The panel discussed the following points: