On Thursday, 4 June 2020, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (“ODCE”) published a welcome reminder on points to be taken into account when considering liquidators’ reports and the likelihood of restriction proceedings as a consequence of dishonest or irresponsible conduct.

While the ODCE considers each company’s case on its own merits taking into account:

(i) the liquidator’s report on the relevant insolvent entity; and

(ii) any other relevant information obtained independently of the liquidator, broadly speaking:

Shortly after the passage of a bill injecting an additional $310 billion into the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program, the SBA has issued another supplemental Interim Final Rule (IFR) providing new guidance on several issues, including eligibility for hedge funds, private equity firms and portfolio companies, and has also answered questions about businesses in bankruptcy proceedings.

In our earlier article, we discussed the importance of timing in corporate recovery efforts and the difficulties facing companies with the examinership process and its legislative requirements.

On 13 June 2019, the much anticipated DIFC Insolvency Law No. 1 of 2019 and associated DIFC Insolvency Regulations 2019 (collectively the “2019 DIFC Insolvency Law”), came into full force and effect, replacing the DIFC Insolvency Law No. 3 of 2009.

By way of context, the 2019 DIFC Insolvency Law applies only to entities registered and operating within the DIFC.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court settled a long-standing circuit split regarding the impact of bankruptcy filings on trademark licenses. Until May 20th, brand owners in some jurisdictions could use bankruptcy protections to terminate the rights of third parties to use its licensed trademarks. Now, it is clear that a bankrupt licensor cannot rescind trademark license rights. Licensees can continue to do whatever their trademark licenses authorize, even if the licensor has filed for bankruptcy.

With the Brexit deadline fast approaching, the ByrneWallace Brexit team address various issues which will impact upon businesses either trading with or through the UK, or with suppliers in the UK, and/or with UK staff based in Ireland or staff in the UK.

In this issue of our Spotlight on Brexit Series, we address Corporate Governance.

Critical issues for businesses to consider in the event of a no-deal Brexit or where transitional arrangements fail to ensure continuity in the treatment of UK companies as EEA undertakings include:

In 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision that the BIA prevailed over a conflicting provision in the provincial regulations promulgated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

On January 17, 2019, the Fifth Circuit held that a creditor is not impaired for the purpose of voting on a plan if it is the Bankruptcy Code (as opposed to plan treatment) that impairs a creditor’s claim. The court further held that a make-whole premium is a claim for unmatured interest which is not an allowable claim under Bankruptcy Code, absent application of the “solvent-debtor” exception which may or not apply—the issue was remanded to the bankruptcy court for decision.

On January 15th, 2019, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that the end user of an electricity forward contact was not entitled to the benefits of the safe harbor provisions under Section 556 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 556 allows a “forward contract merchant” to terminate a forward contract post-petition based on an ipso facto clause in the contract and exempts such actions from the automatic stay.

The Eleventh Circuit recently found in favor of Blue Bell Creameries, Inc. by rejecting its own earlier dicta and explicitly expanding the preference payment defense known as “new value.” This provides additional protection for companies doing business with a debtor in the 90 days prior to bankruptcy.

THE SCOOP: BRUNO’S V. BLUE BELL