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.
From 1 November 2015, additional marketing and disclosure requirements will have to be satisfied by administrators completing pre-packaged sales.
BACKGROUND
The revised Statement of Insolvency Practice 16 (SIP 16) comes into force on 1 November 2015.
RE: HARVEST FINANCE LTD; JACKSON & ANOTHER V CANNONS LAW PRACTICE LLP & OTHERS [2014]
This case concerns the provision of documentation under s236 IA 1986. The documentation requested by the liquidators was extensive and the Respondents wished to claim their time costs (£40,381) of providing the same. The Court held that whilst it was within the Court’s jurisdiction to make an order for costs against the insolvent estate, it was not minded to do so in this case.
The Facts