This past May, in a highly-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has the same effect as a breach of contract outside of bankruptcy.

Over the last two years, much of the healthcare world has been watching the government’s prosecution of Insys Therapeutics for its sales and marketing practices related to its Subsys spray. Subsys is powerful and highly addictive fentanyl spray (administered under the tongue) that was approved by the FDA in 2012 for the treatment of persistent breakthrough pain in adult cancer patients who were already receiving, and tolerant to, regular opioid therapy.

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”

La resolución del Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central de 6 de noviembre de 2018 reconoce el derecho a la deducción de las dotaciones a la provisión por insolvencias en el Impuesto sobre Sociedades, en el caso de transcurso del plazo de seis meses desde el vencimiento de la obligación, con solo manifestar que el crédito se reclamó por teléfono o aportando cualquier indicio de reclamación de la deuda.

La Ley del IVA (Ley 37/1992, de 28 de diciembre), prevé la posibilidad de que el sujeto pasivo recupere las cuotas del impuesto repercutidas y no cobradas cuando, entre otros supuestos, el destinatario de los bienes o servicios se encuentre inmerso en un procedimiento concursal.

La DRGN en la Resolución de 19 de diciembre 2018 valora la posibilidad de inscribir la liquidación y extinción de una sociedad en cuya hoja registral consta inscrita una declaración de insolvencia provisional practicada en el ámbito laboral.

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.

La Sentencia del 11 de julio de 2018 consolida la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo que reconoce la existencia de un grupo de sociedades cuando el control es ejercido por una persona física.