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.

In October 2016, the Chamber for Commercial Disputes at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered the cassation appeal of Eurasian Trading Company LLC (hereinafter – the Trading Company) in Case № А57-16992/2015 against the court’s refusal to introduce monitoring procedures with respect to RBP JSC (hereinafter – the Debtor) and decision to dismiss the application by the Trading Company without consideration.

In early 2015, credit institutions gained the right to initiate the bankruptcy of their debtors according to a simplified procedure – i.e., without a court decision ordering the recovery of debt.

1. Adoption and entry into force of the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Procedure dated March 8, 2015, No. 21-FZ