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.

The so called “Banks Decree” Decree (Law Decree no. 59/2016, hereinafter the “Decree”), published on the Official Gazette and converted into Law no. 199/2016, has recently entered into force.

The main purpose of the Decree is to grant a partial reimbursement to investors of few local banks that were resolved in November 2015. However, the Decree has also introduced additional innovations which represent a further significant step in the Government’s effort of streamlining the credit recovery activities and implementing a more creditor-friendly environment.