Section 154 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act) provides that a business rescue plan (BR plan) may provide that a creditor, who has acceded to the discharge of the whole or part of a debt owing to that creditor, will lose the right to enforce the debt or part of it. Furthermore, if a BR plan has been approved and implemented, a creditor is not entitled to enforce any debt owed by the company immediately before the beginning of the business rescue process, except to the extent provided for in the BR plan.

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.

The legal principles relating to execution against movable property are more or less settled, less so the law relating to execution against immovable property. This is mainly because the right to housing is enshrined in s26 of the Constitution and the issue of land has become somewhat emotive and politicised in the recent past.

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acting under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, rejects a contract licensing its trademarks, the contract is not rescinded and the debtor thus cannot revoke the trademark license.

On April 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in fraudulent transfer litigation arising out of the 2007 leveraged buyout of the Tribune Company,1 ruled on one of the significant issues left unresolved by the US Supreme Court in its Merit Management decision last year.

When executing public M&A transactions, dealmakers need to understand local market practice as well as the local regulatory environment.

In many, if not all, commercial transactions, timing is everything, either for a distressed seller or a purchaser stumbling upon a deal that may almost be too good to be true. There is often no time to waste and a deal must be closed as soon as possible. In the haste of closing a deal, whether in the form of a sale of business or a sale of assets, the parties often agree not to comply with the provisions of s34(1) of the Insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936 (Act), each willing to take the risk in not doing so.

Section 34(1) of the Act provides that: