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).

A recent case in the UK (Phones 4U Limited -v- EE Limited) serves as a warning to businesses of the unintended, and potentially costly, consequences of issuing inadequate termination notices to contractual counterparties.

Background

McDowell Purcell represented a creditor in a recent application to the High Court where Justice Costello granted an Order for Sale on foot of an equitable charge held by the applicant, over properties of the respondent who had been adjudicated a bankrupt.

Application

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.

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.

The High Court delivered a stark reminder to personal insolvency practitioners (PIPs) that they serve an integral role in upholding the legitimacy of the bankruptcy process in a judgment delivered on 5 February 2018.

Background

The judgment arose out of an application by the Official Assignee (“OA”) to postpose the automatic discharge of a bankrupt. The OA submitted that the bankrupt had hidden assets from or failed to disclose assets which could have been realised for the benefit of the creditors of her estate.

Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

Introduction

On 29 June 2017 the High Court made an order for costs against the three former directors of Custom House Capital (the “Company”) having already disqualified them from acting as directors for periods in excess of ten years. The judgment was unusual because the order for costs was not just in relation to the legal costs but also for the very significant investigative costs of the Official Liquidator.

Background

In the recent decision of Re JD (a debtor), the High Court upheld a debtor’s challenge to a lender’s decision to reject a Personal Insolvency Agreement (“PIA”) proposal.

Section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012- 2015 (“the Acts”) provides a new mechanism by which a debtor may seek the Court’s approval of a PIA notwithstanding its rejection by creditors.

This case is particularly significant as: