The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut recently examined a question at the heart of an existing circuit split regarding the consequences of trademark license rejection in bankruptcy: can a trademark licensee retain the use of a licensed trademark post-rejection? In re SIMA International, Inc., 2018 WL 2293705 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018).
On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.
A recent application made by the insolvency practitioner of Agrokor, a major Croatian conglomerate, resulted in recognition in England of a stay of civil proceedings against the group. The purpose of the application was to halt any proceedings in relation to Agrokor's securities and debt obligations containing English law and jurisdiction provisions, pending the restructuring in the Croatian insolvency proceedings of the group's affairs.
In Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in Administration) v Exxonmobil Financial Services BV(1) the High Court considered a range of issues arising from the application of the close-out provisions of the standard-form Global Master Repurchase Agreement (GMRA) 2000.
The recent judgment of Mrs Justice Proudman in Plaza BV –v- The Law Debenture Trust Corporation1 illustrates and extends a line of authorities in which the English courts have sought to narrow the scope of the mandatory application of Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation 44/2001. These cases are a reaction to the broad interpretation of the applicability and effect of Article 2 set out in the ECJ's decision in Owusu –v- Jackson2 , and attempt to confine the influence of that decision.