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.

We're now at the halfway mark of Pensions in 30 Podcasts and episode 15 provides an overview of the Pensions Protection Fund (PPF). We look at how a scheme qualifies for entry into the PPF, funding and compensation.

Click here to listen to the podcast. 

Key Points

If an employer is affected by an insolvency event the insolvency practitioner or official receiver is obliged to notify the trustees of the employer’s pension scheme, the Pensions Regulator, and the Pension Protection Fund of the fact of the insolvency event. Here, we provide an overview of the pensions issues arising from employer insolvency.

After providing an overview of ongoing scheme funding in the last episode, here we delve deeper into contribution obligations when an employer departs from a scheme. We tackle issues including when an employer's debt is triggered, how much the debt is and explore lawful ways to avoid the debt.

Click here to listen to the podcast. 

What role does The Pensions Regulator have when pension schemes need protecting? In episode seven of Pensions in 30 Podcasts, we look further into contribution notices and financial support directions and when they can be brought into play.

Click here to listen to the podcast.

Key Points

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