Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Chapter 11 filing earlier this year has highlighted an issue that is well settled but sometimes overlooked: Unsecured creditors generally have no right to receive immediate payment of their legal fees from a bankrupt borrower, regardless of any contractual rights they might otherwise have absent the bankruptcy.

The Law on Enterprise and Law on Investment that took effect in 2015 introduced refreshing changes to Vietnam’s investment and business landscape. Designed to stimulate and better facilitate foreign investments in the country, the two new laws have since given rise to several implementing regulations that expound on important subjects such as foreign ownership up to 100% in listed companies, private public partnerships, trade, and representative offices.

Although the Supreme Court identified three guideposts for evaluating whether a punitive award is unconstitutionally excessive 23 years ago in BMW v. Gore and refined those guideposts 16 years ago in State Farm v.

In May, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a much anticipated decision in Garvin v. Cook Investments NW, SPNWY, LLC, 922 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir.

At the III Commercial Law Conference held on June 7, 2019, the Council of the Federal Justice approved Precedent No. 104, according to which there will be no transfer of liabilities regarding financial penalties imposed under Law No. 12.846/2013 (Clean Company Act) on the acquirer of assets when the acquisition is based on article 60 of Law No. 11,101/2005 (Brazilian Restructuring and Bankruptcy Law).

Introduction The UK Government has announced that it will be introducing legislation under which the UK tax authorities1 will move up the creditor hierarchy in English insolvency proceedings2 in respect of certain taxes paid by

Taggart v. Lorenzen, No. 18-489

Today, the Supreme Court held 9-0 that a creditor cannot be held in contempt of court for violating a bankruptcy discharge order if there is a “fair ground of doubt” as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.

On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, No. 17-1657. In an 8-1 decision, and in a majority opinion authored by Justice Kagan, the Court held that the debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code “has the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy” and, as such, the debtor, through such a rejection, could not rescind the non-debtor’s licensee’s right to continue to use the trademarks; in short, the debtor-licensor’s rejection of the license “cannot revoke the license.” Slip Op. at 16-17.

Yesterday, in an 8-1 decision, the US Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.

Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, No. 17-1657

Today, the Supreme Court held in an 8-1 decision that when a debtor, acting under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, rejects a contract licensing its trademarks, the contract is not rescinded and the debtor thus cannot revoke the trademark license.