Executive Summary
Last week, the Supreme Court (the “Court”) ruled a debtor in bankruptcy cannot use the Bankruptcy Code to cut off a licensee’s rights under a license to use the debtor’s trademarks. This ruling resolves a Circuit split and brings the treatment of trademark licenses from a bankrupt debtor in line with patent and copyright licenses, which are protected statutorily by Bankruptcy Code section 365(n).
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc., v. Tempnology, LLC clarifies that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is treated as a breach, and not as a rescission, of that license under § 365(g). The Court held that if a licensee’s right to use the trademark would survive a breach outside of bankruptcy, that same right survives a rejection in bankruptcy.
On 27 March 2019, the Federal Court of Australia delivered an important decision demonstrating the Court's willingness to assist liquidators to streamline the procedural aspects of liquidations using technology with the aim of conserving assets for the benefit of creditors.
SUMMARY
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales (“CA”) made a significant ruling on two matters affecting the powers and duties of directors of English companies.
In a consultation issued by the UK tax authority, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), on 26 February 2019, a change in the order of asset distribution in the insolvency of UK companies has been proposed. The amendments would newly favour certain taxes collected and held by an insolvent entity ahead of certain secured and unsecured creditors and would come into force in April 2020.
In a recent opinion, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that a seller licensed under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”) could not entirely setoff payables owed to a bankrupt PACA merchant against receivables owed by the debtor. The ruling is a reminder to PACA-regulated parties that otherwise common operational practices such as setoffs may not be recognized and enforceable in bankruptcy or in PACA-regulated transactions.
On January 17, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “FifthCircuit”) issued a decision in In re Ultra Petroleum Corp. that could have significant implications for creditors seeking payment of contractual make-whole amounts and post-petition interest from chapter 11 debtors.[1]
Clarification by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) on Contracts
Case: Leibson Corporation and Others v TOC Investments Corporation and Others [2018] EWCA Civ 763 (17 April 2018).