Back in the day--say, the last two decades of the twentieth century--we bankruptcy lawyers took it largely on faith that the right structural and contractual provisions purporting to confer bankruptcy-remoteness[1] were enforceable and likely to be successful in preventing an entity from becoming, voluntarily or involuntarily, a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code.

A long-running issue concerning the treatment of trademark licenses in bankruptcy has seen a new milestone with the January 12 decision of the First Circuit in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.[1] The issue was implicit in the Bankruptcy Code from the time of its adoption in 1978 and flared into the open with the decision of the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v.

When the fallout from failed intellectual-property litigation collides with bankruptcy, the complexities may be dizzying enough, but when the emerging practices and imperatives of litigation financing are imposed on those complexities, the situation might be likened to three-dimensional chess. But in the court of one veteran bankruptcy judge, the complexities were penetrated to reveal that elementary errors and oversights can have decisive effects.

It is a unique characteristic of debt restructuring under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code that a majority of a class of creditors can accept a modification of the terms of the debts owed to the class members, as provided in a plan of reorganization, and thereby bind non-accepting class members.[1] The ordinary route to confirming a Chapter 11 plan is to obtain its acceptance by a majority of every impaired class of creditors and equity hold

Avoiding a fraudulent transfer to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in bankruptcy has become easier, or at least clearer, as a result of a recent unanimous decision by a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Zazzali v. United States (In re DBSI, Inc.), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16817 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017).

The long-running litigation spawned by the leveraged buyout of Tribune Company, which closed in December 2007, and the subsequent bankruptcy case commenced on December 8, 2008[1] has challenged the maxim that “there’s nothing new under the sun” even for this writer with four decades of bankruptcy practice behind him.

On May 3, 2017, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico filed a voluntary petition for relief on behalf of Puerto Rico in federal court there. The filing required the Chief Justice of the United States to designate a district court judge to conduct the case. On May 5, Chief Justice Roberts appointed District Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the Southern District of New York. Judge Swain was a bankruptcy judge in the Eastern District of New York before joining the district court in 2000.

Interim costs awards in arbitration proceedings are not often the precursors to winding up applications. However, it may happen that if such an award of costs is not paid, the possibility of winding up the non-paying party may arise. This possibility leads to the following question, "Is a bill of costs drafted pursuant to an arbitration award and taxed by the taxing master of the High Court a "debt" for purposes of section 345 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973?"

The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (the Minister) has recently determined a policy on the appointment of insolvency practitioners, which was published in theGovernment Gazette No 37287 on 7 February 2014 (the policy). This policy, once it commences, will replace all the previous policies and guidelines that are currently being utilised by the Master's offices to appoint insolvency practitioners and its stated intention is to "form the basis of the transformation of the insolvency industry".

Consider the following commonly encountered scenario: A creditor had instituted litigation proceedings against Company X and obtained a default judgment against it. Pursuant to the judgment the creditor issued a writ of execution, but is now faced with the situation where an affected person has brought an application in terms of section 131(1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) to place Company X under supervision and to commence business rescue proceedings. What is the effect on the creditor?