The Delaware bankruptcy court recently decided that a debtor could not assign a trademark license absent the consent of the licensor. The court concluded that federal trademark law and the terms of the license precluded assignment without consent. Because the debtor could not assign the license under any circumstances (consent was not forthcoming), the court held that cause existed to annul the automatic stay to permit the licensor to “move on with its trademark and its business.”
Exculpation provisions in operating agreements must be carefully crafted in order to protect members, managers, directors and officers for breaches of fiduciary duties. In In re Simplexity, LLC, the Chapter 7 trustee sued the former officers and directors (who were also members and/or managers) for failing to act to preserve going concern value and exposing the debtors to WARN Act claims. The defendants argued the exculpation language in the operating agreements shielded against breach of fiduciary duty liability.
Introduction
Luxembourg recently adopted a number of legislative reforms aimed at modernising the rules applicable to commercial companies. In relation to the restructuring and insolvency of Luxembourg-based entities, Parliament is discussing the long-awaited Bill 6539 (the so-called 'Insolvency Bill').
In the meantime, a number of reforms which could affect the restructuring and insolvency of commercial companies have been adopted, including:
It is very common for bankruptcy court orders to provide that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce such orders. Similarly, chapter 11 confirmation orders routinely provide that the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over all orders previously entered in the case. The enforceability of these “retention of jurisdiction” provisions, however, will not rest on the plain language in the order but on the bankruptcy court’s statutory jurisdiction.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court announced that it will review the scope of Bankruptcy Code section 546(e)’s safe harbor provision. Section 546(e) protects from avoidance those transfers that are made “by or to (or for the benefit of)” a financial institution, except where there is actual fraud. The safe harbor is intended to ensure the stability of the securities market in the event of corporate restructurings.
As noted in a recent Distressing Matters post, the United States Supreme Court in In re Jevic Holding Corp. held that debtors cannot use structured dismissals to make payments to creditors in violation of ordinary bankruptcy distribution priority rules.
A bill containing an entirely new Insolvency Code was presented to the House of Representatives on 20 April 2017. The need for a robust insolvency framework has received substantial attention due to the ongoing economic and financial crisis. Many European countries have recently modernised their insolvency legislation or are in the process of doing so.
In 2015, Distressing Matters reported on the Third Circuit’s decision in In re Jevic Holding Corp., wherein that panel ruled that, in rare circumstances, bankruptcy courts may approve the distribution of settlement proceeds in a manner that violates the Bankruptcy Code’s statutory priority scheme.
In the framework of the digitization of the Belgian judiciary, a central Solvency Register (www.regsol.be) will be available as of 1 April 2017.
Henceforth, creditors must file their claims electronically. The register will be accessible - subject to different procedural formalities - to magistrates, including substitute judges, clerks of court and public prosecutors as well as bankrupt parties, their creditors and counsel.
In a judgment of 24 March 2017 (in Dutch), the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the longstanding requirement that for a debtor to be declared bankrupt, there need to be at least two creditors.