On May 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a debtor-licensor’s ‘rejection’ of a trademark license agreement under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code does not terminate the licensee’s rights to continue to use the trademark. The decision, issued in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, resolved a split among the Circuits, but may spawn additional issues regarding non-debtor contractual rights in bankruptcy.
The Court Tells Debtors, “No Take Backs”
In a major development in BVI insolvency law and practice, the BVI Commercial Court has held in Constellation Overseas Limited (BVIHC (Com) 2018/0206 – 2012), that provisional liquidation is available to facilitate a restructuring. The decision brings the British Virgin Islands broadly into line with Cayman and Bermuda, where restructuring provisional liquidations have been used to support several landmark cross-border restructurings in recent years.
Tolstoy warned that “if you look for perfection, you’ll never be content”; but Tolstoy wasn’t a bankruptcy lawyer. In the world of secured lending, perfection is paramount. A secured lender that has not properly perfected its lien can lose its collateral and end up with unsecured status if its borrower files bankruptcy.
In its ruling in FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Sweeney (In re Centaur, LLC), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware addressed the Supreme Court’s recent clarification of the scope of Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e)’s “safe harbor” provision, affirming a more narrow interpretation of Section 546(e).
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to address “[w]hether, under §365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor-licensor’s ‘rejection’ of a license agreement—which ‘constitutes a breach of such contract,’ 11 U.S.C. §365(g)—terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” The appeal arises from a First Circuit decision, Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v.
In the recent decision of Alexander Pleshakov v Sky Stream Corporation and Others (Pleshakov), the BVI Court of Appeal considered the scope of its jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact made at first instance. This is the second time this year that the BVI Court of Appeal has addressed this issue.
In the recent BVI Court of Appeal decisions of Wembley and Sutton ‘disabled’ bearer shareholders were found to have a constitutional right not to be deprived of their property without compensation.
In Stanford v Akers the BVI Court of Appeal addressed standing in the context of applications under Section 273 of the Insolvency Act 2003, whereby an aggrieved person can ask the court to reverse or vary a liquidator's decision.
The liquidators of Chesterfield entered the company into a global settlement agreement with Deutsche Bank AG and Kaupthing, which included the admission of Kaupthing's claim in Chesterfield's liquidation.
Facts
First-instance decision
Court of Appeal decision
Comment
In Delco Participation BV v Green Elite Limited (2018) the Court of Appeal considered the test for appointing liquidators to a company following an alleged loss of substratum.