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.”

This article is the first instalment in a series examining large retail insolvencies in Canada from the perspective of various stakeholders. The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) is the principal statute for the reorganization, or sale, of large corporate debtors in Canada and the functional equivalent to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Chapter 11) in the United States. Accordingly, our series focuses on CCAA proceedings, with references to alternate insolvency proceedings where applicable.

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.

On June 16, 2017, Canada’s Department of Finance and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published for comments a package of draft regulations and guidelines setting out the final details of Canada’s bail-in framework and related total loss absorbency capacity (TLAC) capital standard for Canada’s six domestic systemically important banks (DSIBs). The bail-in regulations are expected to be finalized in the fall of 2017 and will take effect 180 days later.

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.

On April 24, 2017, in Orphan Well Association v.Grant Thornton Limited, the Alberta Court of Appeal (Court) upheld Chief Justice N.

La Cour du Banc de la Reine de l’Alberta (la « Cour ») a clarifié la façon dont seront traitées les demandes en cas d’abus dans le cadre de procédures en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « LACC »). Dans sa décision récente concernant l’affaire Lightstream Resources Ltd.

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.