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.

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).

Under the equity of exoneration, where jointly owned property is charged to secure the indebtedness of one joint owner, the other joint owner is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be acting as a surety only, and is entitled to be exonerated by the principal debtor. This long established principle remains relevant in the modern day, as was recently demonstrated in Day v Shaw.

The theory of universality in insolvency, along with globalisation, has gained much traction across many jurisdictions in recent years. Briefly, the universality theory proposes that an insolvency proceeding has worldwide effect over all the assets of the insolvent company, wherever they may be.

Novedades concursales y fiscales introducidas por el Real Decreto‑ley 4/2014, de 7 de marzo, por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes en materia de refinanciación y reestructuración de deuda empresarial (B.O.E. de 8 de marzo de 2014) A. Objeto de la Reforma Con la entrada en vigor el pasado 9 de marzo del Real Decreto‑ley 4/2014, de 7 de marzo, por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes en materia de refinanciación y reestructuración de deuda empresarial (el “RD‑Ley 4/2014”), el ejecutivo trata de mejorar el marco legal de los acuerdos de refinanciación (los “Acuerdos de Refinanciación”).

Novedades concursales y fiscales introducidas por el Real Decreto‑ley 4/2014, de 7 de marzo, por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes en materia de refinanciación y reestructuración de deuda empresarial (B.O.E. de 8 de marzo de 2014)