The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling yesterday in the First Circuit case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, resolving a circuit split that had developed on “whether [a] debtor‑licensor’s rejection of an [executory trademark licensing agreement] deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark.” And it answered that question in the negative; i.e., in favor of licensees.

When it comes to offsets, bankruptcy law provides for two distinct remedies: (1) setoff and (2) recoupment.

Setoff allows a creditor to reduce the amount of prepetition debt it owes a debtor with a corresponding reduction of that creditor’s prepetition claim against the debtor. The remedy of setoff is subject to the automatic stay, as well as various conditions under § 553 of the Bankruptcy Code — including that it does not apply if the debts arise on opposite sides of the date on which the debtor’s case was commenced.

After receiving the Royal Assent on 10 May 2017, the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill 2016 (Bill) has finally come into force in Malaysia on 6 October 2017, marking the dawn of the new Malaysian Bankruptcy regime.

As highlighted in our previous November 2016 Client Alert, the Bill will rename the existing Bankruptcy Act 1967 to the Insolvency Act 1967 and will also have important implications, specifically to financial institutions and corporates whose loans / debts are secured by personal guarantees.

On 21 November 2016, the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill 2016 (Bill) was tabled in Parliament. The Bill will rename the Bankruptcy Act 1967 to the Insolvency Act 1967 and will have important implications, in particular to financial institutions and corporates whose loans / debts are secured by personal guarantees, once their amendments are incorporated in the existing Bankruptcy Act 1967 (Act) and are passed and in force.