Over the past four years, midstream firms have struggled to adapt their long-standing practices and adjust their long-held expectations, which were fundamentally disrupted by the outcome of the landmark bankruptcy case, In re Sabine Oil & Gas. Midstream providers have since developed and relied on certain mechanisms and carefully drafted contract language in order to bind upstream companies and their successors in interest to obligations and restrictions contained of midstream agreements.
In a decision of McDonald J in RESAM Cork UC & Anor v Monsoon Accessorize Ltd & Anor, Apperley Investments Ltd & Ors v Monsoon Accessorize Ltd1, the High Court refused to recognise and enforce certain provisions of Monsoon Accessorize Limited’s ("Monsoon") Company Voluntary Arrangement implemented in the United Kingdom as they related to Irish leases on the basis that to do so would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the State.
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:
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.
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?
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:
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?
On July 19, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered a decision upholding the results of a foreclosure sale against a debtor’s allegation that the sale was a preference because the bankruptcy estate could have sold the property for a higher price. Veltre v. Fifth Third Bank (In re Veltre), Case No. 17-2889 (3d Cir. July 19, 2018).
(Excerpted from “Retail Bankruptcies – Protections for Landlords,” Practical Law Journal, May 2018, by Lars Fuller)
Due to increasing competition from online sellers, recent years have seen a dramatic uptick in Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings by multistate brick-and-mortar retailers – some that have dozens, or even hundreds, of storefronts. These bankruptcies create challenges for the commercial landlords that own the shopping centers, malls and other establishments that those retailers rented.
Ground leases are fairly common but sometimes overlooked property interests. A succinct but adequate definition of a ground lease was articulated by Herbert Thorndike Tiffany (Tiffany on Real Property § 85.50 [3d ed.]) as follows: