On October 31, 2014, Bankruptcy Judge Kaplan of the District of New Jersey addressed two issues critically important to intellectual property licensees and purchasers: (i) can a trademark  licensee use section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code to keep licensed marks following a  debtor-licensor’s rejection of a license agreement?; and (ii) can a “free and clear” sale of  intellectual property eliminate any rights retained by a licensee? In re Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc., et  al., 2014 WL 5508177 (Bankr. D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2014).

The High Court has recently affirmed the existence and scope of a liquidator’s equitable lien in Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2014] HCA 15.

A liquidator is entitled to an equitable lien for the costs, charges and expenses (including the liquidator’s remuneration) incurred by the liquidator in realising assets brought into the estate, which lien takes priority over a creditor’s security: Re Universal Distributing Co Ltd (in liquidation) [1933] HCA 2.

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia highlights the importance of properly registering security interests under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

Earlier this year, we reported on a decision limiting a secured creditor's right to credit bid purchased debt (capping the credit bid at the discounted price paid for the debt) to facilitate an auction in Fisker Automotive Holdings' chapter 11 case.¹ In the weeks that followed, the debtor held a competitive (nineteen-round) auction and ultimately selected Wanxiang America Corporation, rather than the secured creditor, as the w

Voluntary administrators frequently obtain Court orders permitting notices to be issued to creditors electronically. Such orders are made under section 447A of the Corporations Act (the Act) on grounds of efficiency, cost and necessity. See Mothercare Australia Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2013] NSWSC 263 and Creative Memories Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1294.

On August 2, 2012, in the case ofIn re MBS Management Services, Inc.,¹ the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a retail electricity agreement with a real estate management company constituted a forward contract protected by the “safe harbor” provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (“Bankruptcy Code”).

Introduction

On June 23, 2011, after fifteen years of hugely acrimonious litigation, the Supreme Court of the United States (the “Court”) issued a decision on a narrow legal issue that may end up significantly limiting the scope of bankruptcy courts’ core jurisdiction.  

Introduction