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.

The reform of claw-back rights in German insolvency proceedings which provides for more legal certainty for creditors has become effective on 5 April 2017.

To date, a debt waiver has been frequently used as a tool to successfully restructure German-based companies in financial difficulties.

In light of the UK’s cram down and director-friendly processes, in particular its scheme of arrangement model, major European economies such as France, Germany and Italy have worked hard to develop regimes that give greater emphasis to pre-insolvency alternatives. These new regimes create cram down mechanisms and encourage debtor-in-possession (DIP) financings, ultimately aiming to make restructuring plans more accessible, more efficient, and crucially more reliable; essentially more in tune with the Anglo-American approach to insolvency and restructuring.

German Federal Court of Justice decision paves the way for bond restructurings under 2009 Bonds Act.

Frank Grell is a partner at Latham & Watkins who chairs the firm’s German Restructuring and Insolvency Practice. In this interview, he reflects on several successful applications of the German Insolvency Act (Insolvenzordnung) since the law was passed in 2012 and the continued shift towards a restructuring-based approach to large corporate insolvencies.

Frank Grell is a partner at Latham & Watkins who chairs the firm’s German Restructuring and Insolvency Practice. Grell reflects on some of the major changes brought about by Germany’s 2012 Insolvency Act (Insolvenzordnung), including an increase in the rights of creditors in the proceedings over the assets of German companies, the introduction of “protective shield” proceedings and a reduction in the negative stigma previously associated with restructuring and insolvency.