In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

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.

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.

Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?

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.

Introduction

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court (the “Bankruptcy Court”) recently enjoined a Hong Kong-based investor from exercising its shareholder purchase rights in an Asian joint venture.[1] The Bankruptcy Court’s order also prevents the investor from proceeding with litigation to enforce its rights in a Hong Kong court. Neither of the joint venture partners, or the joint venture itself, are debtors in a domestic or foreign insolvency proceeding. Nevertheless, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that injunctive relief was warranted because the investor’s actions were disrupting a sale process for the U.S.

Introduction Following recent proposed changes to UK restructuring and insolvency law, a new European Union (“EU”) directive concerning restructuring within EU Member States proposed by the European Commission (“Commission”) has reached an advanced stage.

On 21 September 2018, the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal delivered the eagerly anticipated decision in Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)1. The appeal decision has come down on the side of what many considered to be the correct position for set off compared to the findings in the first Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)2 case.

On 1 July 2018, the stay on ipso facto clauses introduced by the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (Act) came into effect and will apply to contracts entered into on or after that date. The Act, left a number of issues up in the air which were expected to be filled by regulations. Those regulations, and a declaration, were released in late June 2018, providing little time for contracting parties, and their advisors, to understand how the new laws would impact them before their commencement.

The Stay