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.

La Sentencia del Tribunal General del TJUE de 8 de abril de 2014 (asunto T-319/11), resuelve el re- curso de anulación parcial interpuesto por ABN Amro Group NV contra la Decisión 2011/823/UE, de la Comisión, que le impuso la prohibición de adquirir empresas de cualquier sector como una de las condiciones para considerar compatible con el mercado interior la ayuda pública que recibió del Estado holandés. La entidad ABN Amro había recibido ayuda pública para su recapitalización de entre 4.200 y 5.450 millones de euros, así como una ayuda de liquidez de 7.170 millones de euros.

El Real Decreto Ley 8/2013, de 28 de junio, de medidas urgentes contra la morosidad de las administraciones públicas y de apoyo a entidades locales con problemas financieros (publicado en el BOE de 19 de junio, convalidado por acuerdo del Congreso de los Diputados de 17 de julio), recoge una serie de medidas extraordinarias para ayudar a las Administraciones autonómicas y locales a reducir su deuda comercial acumulada.

Yes it can, according to the most recent judgments of the Spanish high courts. The question was addressed in several Judgments issued by the High Court (HC) of Castilla-La Mancha (amongst others, the Judgment issued on 11 February 2013, in Appeal no. 320/2012, and the Judgment issued on 12 February 2013 on Appeal no. 321/2012) and by the High Court (HC) of Madrid in its Judgment no. 41/2012 of 21 January.