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).

In the final part of this series, we look at how you can protect your position and be prepared in the event of an impending insolvency.

Thinking ahead

It is always prudent to assess insolvency risk before finalising a contract. The trading history and financial position of a company should be carefully reviewed and a financial risk assessment made at both the outset and during the lifetime of a project. Obtain an up to date set of accounts and a credit report before entering into your contract to enable you to assess the counterparty's financial viability.

In the second of our mini-series on insolvency in construction, we consider what you need to do when you find out that the party you are in contract with has become (or is about to become) insolvent.

Who are you in contract with? Which specific entity?

The first thing you should do in the event of a counterparty's alleged insolvency is check which legal entity you are in a contract with.

This is in order to prevent you from acting too early and committing a repudiatory breach yourself, if you take pre-emptive action against your counterparty.

Insolvency is high on the agenda in the construction industry.

In the first of this mini series, we take a look at the meaning of insolvency and summarise the main insolvency processes that can typically affect parties involved in construction projects. The series will also address contract issues and minimising risk, so keep an eye out for our future articles on this topic.

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