Thomas Cook Belgium and Brussels Airlines may escape fines from the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) notwithstanding the conclusion of an agreement providing for anticompetitive practices according to the Investigation and Prosecution Service of the Authority.
In August 2017, the BCA had opened an investigation into potential anticompetitive practices resulting from the conclusion of a "Commercial Service Agreement" between Thomas Cook Belgium and Brussels Airlines.
On 14 October 2019, the European Commission (“Commission”) approved the German rescue aid to charter airline Condor under the EU State Aid rules.
Condor is going through a difficult financial situation following the entry into liquidation of the Thomas Cook Group, its parent company. The charter airline is currently facing an acute liquidity shortage but also a loss of important claims against other member companies that it will not be able to collect.
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
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?
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.
On October 20, 2017, in In re MPM Silicones, LLC ("Momentive"), Nos. 15-1682, 15-1771, 15-1824, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, considering the Supreme Court's opinion in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), adopted the Sixth Circuit's two-step approach to determining an appropriate cramdown interest rate that, in certain circumstances, results in the application of a market rate of interest. In doing so, the Second Circuit reversed the bankruptcy and district court holdings on the cramdown interest rate issue.
On June 22, Sears Canada Inc. ("Sears Canada") and certain affiliates1 (collectively, the "Sears Canada Group") sought and obtained insolvency protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the "Court"), which in turn appointed FTI Consulting Canada Inc. (FTI or the "Monitor") as monitor.
For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a "bet the company" litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.
For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a “bet the company” litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.
Sedert 1 januari 2017 voorziet de wet uitdrukkelijk in een algemene mogelijkheid voor de Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid (“RSZ”) om onbetwiste geldschulden in te vorderen door middel van een dwangbevel.
Dit houdt in dat de RSZ zichzelf een uitvoerbare titel (een dwangbevel) kan verschaffen, zonder een omweg te maken via de arbeidsrechtbank.
De invordering via dwangbevel is mogelijk voor alle bijdragen, bijdrageopslagen, verwijlintresten en andere vergoedingen die aan de RSZ verschuldigd zouden zijn. Belangrijk is weliswaar dat het dient te gaan om schulden: