- Introduction
The situation due to the coronavirus has resulted in a massive disruption and to some extent even in a complete standstill of public and social life with far-reaching consequences for the national and international economy. The recent border closures will have a further impact on the movement of people and goods.
As a result, the German Federal Government has announced that it will provide several instruments to reduce the impact of the situation:
During these uncertain times, bankruptcy courts across the country remain steadfast in their commitment to serve the public and provide critical relief to debtor companies and their many constituents, including employees, lenders, and other parties in interest. To address public concern about COVID-19 and to protect all parties, many bankruptcy courts have issued general orders implementing procedures and adopting protocols that balance public health and safety with parties’ need for emergency relief from the court.
Bankruptcy filings of big box retailers such as Sears, Shopko and Charming Charlie have left landlords with difficult space to fill, especially at a time when few retailers are looking to expand and open new brick-and-mortar stores. Charming Charlie will close all of its 261 stores in 2019 (35 of which are located in Texas) while Sears announced 80 new store closures at the beginning of 2019 in addition to the 220 store closures it announced last year. Sears owned 687 stores at the time it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last October.
On May 24, 2019, New Zealand-based online asset exchange, Cryptopia Limited, filed a petition under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code seeking recognition of its New Zealand liquidation proceeding in the United States. On the same day, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted provisional relief to Cryptopia, including extending the benefits of the automatic stay to prevent creditors or other parties in interest from taking actions to interfere with Cryptopia’s assets.
Holders of trademark licenses can breathe a sigh of relief after the Supreme Court issued its decision on May 20, 2019, in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC[1] holding that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark licensing agreement under section 365 of the bankruptcy code does not automatically terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the trademark.
Yesterday, in Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology LLC, the Supreme Court held that a trademark licensee may continue using a licensed trademark after its licensor files for bankruptcy and rejects the relevant license agreement. While a debtor-licensor may "reject" a trademark license agreement under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, such rejection is only a breach of the agreement and does not allow the licensor to revoke the licensee's rights.
On March 27, 2019, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia issued an opinion holding that an over-secured creditor could not recover a portion of the creditor's attorney's fees incurred in connection with the borrower's bankruptcy proceeding despite provisions in the loan agreement that provided for recovery of attorney's fees "incurred in connection with the enforcement" of the loan documents.
New York and Delaware courts resolved two coverage issues in favor of directors and officers of real estate investment trust advisory companies in lawsuits against their liability insurers. Both decisions arise out of ongoing coverage disputes related to allegations of fraud and other wrongdoing in connection with accounting irregularities.
I. Introduction
Italy has replaced its Bankruptcy Act of 1942 with a comprehensive reform, the process for which started two years ago. On 19 October 2017, Parliament passed Law No. 155 of 2017 delegating the Government to adopt, within the next 12 months, a comprehensive reform of the rules governing financial crises and insolvency procedures. On 10 January 2019, the Government approved Legislative Decree No. 14 of 2019, captioned “Code for Distress and Insolvency” (Codice della Crisi d’Impresa e dell’Insovenza—the “Code”).
At a time when the actions of directors, both collectively and individually, have received considerable attention in both the academic and public press, the need for directors to understand their duties, and the steps that can be taken to fulfill their obligations and minimise potential liabilities, becomes especially important.
This article considers: