Second Circuit’s reversal of controversial restructuring decision may boost confidence among distressed bond issuers.

The decision provides some additional, though limited protection for licensees of trademarks in bankruptcy proceedings

Introduction

In In re Tempnology LLC,1 the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (the BAP) for the First Circuit provided additional clarity regarding the rights of intellectual property licensees under section 365(n) of the United States Bankruptcy Code,2 particularly with respect to trademark licenses. In Tempnology, the First Circuit BAP concluded that:

Section 365(n) extends only to licenses of "intellectual property" as defined in the Bankruptcy Code,3

With a new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code that has become effective on 1 December 2016, India seeks to expedite the process for creditors seeking payment or foreclosure through the courts.

Il Decreto Legge n. 59/2016 (il cosiddetto “Decreto Banche”, di seguito il Decreto) è stato pubblicato in Gazzetta Ufficiale (e successivamente modificato e convertito in legge con la Legge n. 199/2016) ed è recentemente entrato in vigore ma è ancora per alcuni aspetti in attesa della normativa secondaria per la sua implementazione.

The so called “Banks Decree” Decree (Law Decree no. 59/2016, hereinafter the “Decree”), published on the Official Gazette and converted into Law no. 199/2016, has recently entered into force.

The main purpose of the Decree is to grant a partial reimbursement to investors of few local banks that were resolved in November 2015. However, the Decree has also introduced additional innovations which represent a further significant step in the Government’s effort of streamlining the credit recovery activities and implementing a more creditor-friendly environment.

Italy's latest law reforms continue with creditor-friendly amendments to support the local banking sector while providing confidence to investors.

Decree Law No. 59/2016 (the so-called "Banks Decree," hereinafter the Decree) was published in the Official Gazette (the Decree was later amended and converted into law by Law No. 119/2016) and has recently entered into force.

September 2016

Commercial Litigation

Can a conflicting email and attachment regarding settlement amount to an acceptance, or does it constitute a counter offer?

Summary

In an appeal from the County Court, regarding the forfeiture of a lease, the High Court confirmed that a purported acceptance of a settlement offer was actually a counter offer. In suggesting an alternative payment date, the company had made a counter offer which the other party had not accepted.

Background

The case of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited (in liquidation) v (1) Gary John Fielding (2) Sally Anne Fielding [2016] determined whether a claim in respect of breach of duty against two directors of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited (Burnden) was time-barred. The alleged breach of duty was in connection with a distribution in specie. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and held that section 21 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) applied so that the claim was not subject to the usual period of limitation.

This briefing is the second in a series of 3 briefings about the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 which we will be publishing on the run-up to it coming into force on 1 August 2016.

Click here if you would like to read the first briefing in the series.

The pros and cons every claims professional needs to know

This briefing is the first in a series of 3 briefings about the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 which we will be publishing over the next fortnight.

The pros and cons every claims professional needs to know – part 1