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.

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).

It has been just over two months since one of South Korea's largest shipowners and operators, Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (“Hanjin”), applied for court rehabilitation. On 1 September 2016, the Bankruptcy Division 6 of the Seoul Central District Court (the “court”) issued a decision accepting that application and commencing rehabilitation proceedings.

The Chinese Maritime Courts are not obliged to recognise and/or enforce foreign courts' orders, therefore Hanjin's creditors could still arrest Hanjin-related vessels in China if they have maritime claims (recognised under Chinese law) against the registered owners and/or bareboat charterers of the said vessels.

Container leasing companies and bunker suppliers could also file applications in order to request that the corresponding Chinese Maritime Courts order Hanjin to return the leased containers to Hanjin or the bunkers supplied to Hanjin in certain circumstances.

As you may be aware, one of South Korea's largest shipowners, Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (“Hanjin”), has applied for court rehabilitation in Korea. On 1 September 2016 the Seoul Central District Court (Bankruptcy Division 6) issued a decision accepting that application and commencing rehabilitation proceedings.

Based on our experience in dealing with recent rehabilitations involving the Korean shipping industry and working closely with Korean lawyers, we set out below a few guidance points.

What is a Korean Court Rehabilitation?

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