Summary

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.

Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts cannot approve a “structured dismissal”—a dismissal with special conditions or that does something other than restoring the “prepetition financial status quo”—providing for distributions that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme absent the consent of affected creditors. Czyzewski v.Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066259, at *3 (Mar. 22, 2017).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently articulated a standard to determine what claims may be barred against a purchaser of assets "free and clear" of claims pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code and highlighted procedural due process concerns with respect to enforcement.¹  The decision arose out of litigation regarding certain defects, including the well-known "ignition switch defect," affecting certain GM vehicles.  GM's successor (which acquired GM's assets in a section 363 sale in 2009) asserted that a "free and clear" provisi

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it.  The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code.  In In re Tribune Co.

众所周知，采矿业面临着艰难的局面。在最近几年的市场繁荣时期，矿业公司承担了空前庞大的债务。目前，随着商品价格的下降和再融资来源的枯竭，这些巨额的债务令许多公司步履维艰，严重威胁着它们的生存。

加拿大

若无法与债权人商定业务解决方案，公司应该考虑向债权人寻求破产法项下的保护。在加拿大拥有资产或在加拿大经营业务且债务金额在五百万以上的公司可获得联邦《公司债权人安排法》（简称，“CCAA”）项下的保护。

CCAA允许公司在重组公司事务时暂缓债权人追诉，同时根据某些条件维持对公司经营的控制。公司，特别是未达到五百万债务门槛的公司，还可以考虑联邦《破产法》项下的和解机制。在本文中，我们将讨论CCAA项下的程序。

CCAA项下程序的第一步是获得法院命令，该命令将暂缓债权人在三十日的初始期限内行使其权利，从而允许公司制定重组方案。在获得首个暂缓命令前，公司无需通知债权人，尽管在许多情况下，建议公司通知其债权人。

若公司能够证明其很有可能将提交重组方案，并且延期不会有损于债权人的整体利益，暂缓命令的期限还可以延长。下达暂缓命令时，法院还将任命独立第三方在命令生效期间，监控公司业务及财务事宜。监控人须向法院报告公司的业务行为，但并不管理或指导公司业务。

The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. ^[1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.

Background