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.

Several industry associations (ISDA, BBA and FOA – the futures and options association) have responded to a Treasury informal consultation on the need to carve out from English insolvency law the porting of clearing clients’ positions and margin. They agree on the need to ensure certainty around the porting option when a clearing member becomes insolvent. EMIR’s porting option should also apply where the clearing member is acting through back-to-back transactions and holds the client’s margin. The associations note that porting should be subject to agreement.

FSA has launched a consultation and discussion paper on proposals to bring the Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS) in line with EMIR. More generally, it wants to make CASS client money pooling provisions more flexible and address the problems identified during the Lehman and MF Global insolvencies.

The proposals cover the following: