In an 8-1decision issued on May 20, the Supreme Court held that rejection of an executory trademark license agreement in a bankruptcy of the licensor is merely a breach, and not a termination or rescission, of the agreement. The licensee retains whatever rights it would have had upon a breach of the agreement prior to bankruptcy and can continue to use the trademarks pursuant to its contractual rights under applicable law. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___, No. 17-1657 (May 20, 2019).

Background

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently upheld an unreported decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench that unpaid taxes on linear property (which were pipelines and associated facilities in the case at bar) formed only unsecured claims against the debtors.

In Galantis v Alexious, [2019] UKPC 15 the Privy Council concluded that the oppression remedy existing under the Bahamian Companies Act cannot be invoked after the dissolution of a company, with respect to oppressive conduct by directors that occurred before the dissolution of the company.

In Business Development Bank of Canada v.

PLAN SPONSOR ENTITLED TO VOTE AS CREDITOR AND CREDITOR APPROVAL REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT LITIGATION FUNDING AGREEMENT.

On February 1, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its highly anticipated decision in the Orphan Well Association, et al. v. Grant Thornton Limited, et al, 2019 SCC 5 (Redwater).

What Is the "Rule in Gibbs"?

The rule in Gibbs is a long-established common law principle in which the Court of Appeal determined that a debt governed by English law cannot be discharged or compromised by a foreign insolvency proceeding(Anthony Gibbs and Sons v La Société Industrielle et Commerciale des Métaux (1890) 25 QBD 399). The rule in Gibbs remains a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law.

Why Does the Rule in Gibbs Matter?

While 2018 saw a slight decrease in nationwide CCAA filings (with 19 total cases commenced, compared to 23 in 2017), there were a number of important decisions rendered throughout the country. The highlights are summarized below:

Supreme Court of Canada clarifies Crown priority for GST claims

In a brief but significant opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware reversed a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and allowed more than $30 million in unsecured, post-petition fees incurred by an indenture trustee ("Indenture Trustee").1 In reversing, the District Court relied upon a uniform body of Court of Appeals opinions issued on the subject.

In a 2017 judgment discussed here, the Federal Court of Appeal permitted the CRA to assert a claim against a secured creditor who had received a repayment from its borrower prior to bankruptcy when the borrower also owed unremitted GST obligations to the Crown.