On November 23, 2018, the German Federal Council (Bundesrat) approved the Tax Reform Act of 2018 (the “Tax Reform Act”; Gesetz zur Vermeidung von Umsatzsteuerausfällen beim Handel mit Waren im Internet und zur Änderung weiterer steuerlicher Vorschriften), which was passed by the German Parliament (Bundestag) on November 8, 2018.
On November 23, 2018 the German Federal Council (Bundesrat) approved the Tax Reform Act of 2018 (the “Tax Reform Act”; Gesetz zur Vermeidung von Umsatzsteuerausfällen beim Handel mit Waren im Internet und zur Änderung weiterer steuerlicher Vorschriften), which was passed by the German Parliament (Bundestag) on November 8, 2018.
Avago Technologies Wireless (USA) Manufacturing Inc. acquired PLX Technologies, Inc. for $6.50 per share in cash. After the $300 million merger closed, certain former PLX stockholders sued for damages, alleging that the PLX directors had breached their fiduciary breaches, aided and abetted by both Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. (a hedge fund that is an activist stockholder and had three designees on the PLX board) and the PLX board’s financial advisor (the “Banker”).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a 2–1 decision affirming the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which reconsidered its prior approval of a $275 million termination fee in connection with a proposed merger. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 18-1109, 2018 WL 4354741, at *14 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018).
On June 20, 2018, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware sustained an objection to a proof of claim filed by a postpetition debt purchaser premised on anti-assignment clauses contained in transferred promissory notes. In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, et al., No. 17-12560, at *14 (jointly administered) (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 20, 2018).
Summary
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut recently examined a question at the heart of an existing circuit split regarding the consequences of trademark license rejection in bankruptcy: can a trademark licensee retain the use of a licensed trademark post-rejection? In re SIMA International, Inc., 2018 WL 2293705 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018).
On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.
Credit agreements by their terms commonly bar the borrower from seeking punitive, indirect, special or consequential damages for a breach of the agreement by lenders and their affiliates. The clauses, as enforced, prevent a borrower from obtaining damages for harm that may be suffered by the borrower's business if the lender wrongfully declines to fund. The clauses prevent lenders from exposure to open-ended damages claims if the lenders refuse to lend to a borrower, including damages that are the direct and indirect result of the failure to lend.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.