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 our recent article on restructuring options for retail businesses, we outlined how a number of companies in that sector had implemented or were considering Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs).

Directors against whom claims for a misfeasance have been intimated often turn to limitation and set off in defence of a request for the repayment or restoration of the relevant sums or property.

Misfeasance and limitation

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.

While overall insolvencies fell in number in 2017 compared with 2016, the last quarter of 2017 showed an increase compared with the previous quarters which had been stable.

In those insolvencies, the vast majority are voluntary liquidations, but there is a trend of retail businesses which are struggling turning to the Company Voluntary Arrangement restructuring option, often accompanied by a managed reduction in operations.

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.

This article was first published in The Gazette, and the original article can be found online here.

The implementation of the Insolvency Rules 2016 has introduced a number of changes to the procedures in insolvency regimes.

Any business owner will know the importance of consistent cash flow to the success of their business. On 1 October 2017, a new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims will come into force. The new Protocol will make the process of claiming debts from unwilling debtors slower and more onerous for creditors as a new mandatory process before a claim can be issued is required, with longer timescales. It also aims to avoid court proceedings wherever possible, firmly encouraging parties to engage in alternative forms of dispute resolution.