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.
The Institutional Limited Partner Association (ILPA) has published recommendations for how “GP-led fund restructurings” should be organised. These transactions occur when a fund sponsor (GP/manager) introduces a secondary purchaser to buy assets out of one of its existing funds, typically into a new fund structure where the same GP is the manager. Such transactions are complex and inevitably throw up conflict issues. Investors regularly complain that GPs are short on transparency and slapdash with timelines when trying to do one of these deals.
No. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s original finding, namely that no duty to consider AWA’s creditors had arisen. Whilst AWA’s directors had made provision for the contingent liabilities in question, this did not itself mean AWA was insolvent or close to insolvency. In fact, it was not, and so the duty to consider AWA’s creditors never arose.
Practical implications
Although this decision simply confirms the High Court’s original decision, it emphasises the care and vigilance with which directors of a company need to act when paying dividends.
Court confirms dividends can be transactions at an undervalue
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a dividend paid by a company to its shareholders can constitute a transaction at an undervalue under insolvency law.
What happened?
At the initial hearing, the High Court found the dividend was caught by section 423 and was therefore invalid. Importantly, it said that a dividend could constitute a transaction at an undervalue. This was an important confirmation, and the High Court has since followed this approach (for example, in Dickinson v NAL Realisations (Staffordshire) Ltd).
The court has decided to allow a shareholder to pursue a derivative claim on behalf of a company that was placed into a pre-pack administration.
What happened?
Montgold Capital LLP v Ilska and others involved a restaurant company which was placed into a “pre-pack” administration, under which its entire business was sold, in late 2016.
Since the Construction Act came into force over 20 years ago, it has been a central tenet of the construction industry that a party can start an adjudication at any time, on any dispute (subject to questions of crystallisation or the dispute having already been decided).
However, it is interesting that two recent Court decisions seem to have called this into question - Michael Lonsdale v Bresco and Grove v S&T.
Yesterday, draft Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 were published by the Government. In the event of a 'no deal' Brexit, the statutory instrument would amend UK legislation and EU legislation retained on exit day relating to insolvency.