On February 17, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a joint rule that would govern the resolution of large broker-dealers that are designated as “covered financial companies” under the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) provisions (Title II) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Most companies do not own all of the intellectual property (IP) rights that their businesses rely on. It is not uncommon for some portion of a company’s IP rights to be in-licensed from other persons or entities under a license agreement. In such cases, the licensee has contractual rights to use the IP that is the subject of an in-license but not full ownership of such IP. In the day-to-day operations of a company, the distinction between owned IP rights and in-licensed IP rights can easily get lost.
The Court of Chancery issues a liberal ruling on creditor derivative standing and more obsequies for the “zone of insolvency.”
It is trite to observe that issues related to the insolvency of a company are not arbitrable. However, the generality of this broad proposition can be misleading. In this the first of two articles on the arbitrability of claims, we look at how a court may approach a winding up petition in the face of a claim that the purported debt on which the petition is based relates to a dispute that is to be arbitrated.
Today, the Vermont Supreme Court issues its opinion in the Ambassador in Liquidation case striking down the estate’s previously-published 12/31/13 bar date for final Proofs of Claim. The Ambassador Ins. Co. liquidation has been in process since 1987. After the estate obtained over $300,000,000 in reinsurance and settlement proceeds from its former auditing firm, the estate essentially became “solvent”—paying Priority Four claims at 100 percent (plus interest).
On October 27, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that even inadvertent mistakes in UCC filings count, and the burden rests on the filing party to detect errors, and not on affected parties who come across them in a search. This ruling upsets a 2013 decision of a bankruptcy court and will ultimately determine the character of a $1.5 billion security interest in the General Motors (GM) bankruptcy.
Background
On Oct. 27, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that even inadvertent mistakes in UCC filings count – the burden rests on the filing party to detect errors, and not on affected parties who come across them in a search. This ruling upsets the 2013 decision of the bankruptcy court and will ultimately determine the character of a $1.5 billion security interest in the General Motors (GM) bankruptcy.
Background
The court provides guidance on liability if a subsidiary goes bankrupt because of the misconduct and careless management of its parent company.
Over the last few years, employees have increasingly sought to hold the parent companies of their employers liable for the subsidiaries’ actions by trying to demonstrate that the parent entity is the employee’s co-employer, i.e., that the employee has two employers: the company that hired him or her and its parent company.
To demonstrate this co-employment situation, the employee must prove either that
The new law extends the grounds for shareholders’ liability and invalidation of transactions.
On 26 March 2014, the new Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Law (the New Law) took effect in Kazakhstan. The New Law supersedes the Bankruptcy Law adopted in 1997 (the Old Law).
As bankruptcy practitioners will recall, the Supreme Court held in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S., 131 S.Ct. 2594, 2620 (2011) that bankruptcy courts, as non-Article III courts, “lack[] the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim,” even though Congress had classified these types of proceedings as core – and thus authorized federal bankruptcy courts to hear and decide them.