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.
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.
On 8 March 2019 the consultation on the partial revision of the banking act was initiated by the Federal Council. The amendments have an impact on bank restructurings, deposit insurance and intermediated securities. The consultation period will close on 14 June 2019.
Insolvency and restructuring measures
La loi du 15 avril 2018 portant réforme du droit des entreprises bouleverse indéniablement la législation économique en Belgique. Désormais, la réglementation propre aux entreprises est refondue et englobe les associations (internationales) sans but lucratif (AS(I)BL) et les fondations notamment sous l’égide du Code de Droit Economique (CDE). Toutes les A(I)SBL sont maintenant pleinement considérées comme des entreprises. Mais quelles en sont les conséquences pratiques ?
Le concept d’entreprise redéfini
A mortgage bank has the power to foreclose and sell the collateral if the debtor is in default. However, this power does not apply in full. There is a risk of abuse of power in this respect. The circumstances, motives and actions of the parties play a major role in this. In this situation, the interests of the mortgage bank and the debtor are diametrically opposed. The mortgage bank has an interest in claiming the outstanding claim and the debtor has an interest in maintaining his immovable property.
As from 1 May 2018, a comprehensive reform of the Belgian insolvency framework entered into force. The old framework consisted of two separate laws governing respectively bankruptcy and judicial reorganization. The new legal framework incorporates both regimes in Book XX of the Belgian Code of Economic Law.
Innovations
The U.S. Supreme Court recently scrutinized the proper application of the safe harbor found in Section 546(e) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code1 in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting Inc.2 While the Supreme Court's decision narrowed the reach of the safe harbor, it did little to change the landscape for the multi-billion dollar U.S. structured finance industry, including warehouse lending.
On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court in a significant ruling held in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. that transfers of property of a debtor in which financial institutions are mere conduits or intermediaries may be avoidable. The Court ruled that the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code do not protect such transfers from avoidance.