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.
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.
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.
CHANGES TO THE INSOLVENCY AND RESTRUCTURING COMPANIES CODE
The changes to the Insolvency and Restructuring Companies Code, as established in Decree-Law No. 79/2017 of June 30, entered into force on July 1 2017.
Noteworthy changes
A. Special revitalization proceeding (Processo Especial de Revitalizao "PER")
1. This proceeding is now only available to companies.
2. Requirements for this proceeding were revised.
a. For every company:
Financing and Restructuring July 2017 Cases and transactions Dual financing to build waste management center FLUIDRA: Issuance of promissory notes on MARF Agile process to sell production unit in insolvency proceedings Legislation New rules on prospectuses Regulation coming into force on insolvency proceedings and forms Case law Indirect shareholding and subordination of credit Pledging of VAT credits resistant to insolvency proceedings Concept of group in insolvency proceedings Individual legal standing in syndicated loans Insolvency categorization of loans secured with pledge of credit ri
CONTENTS CORPORATE LAW NEWSLETTER I MARCH, 2017 I CAPITALIZAR PROGRAMME – PRESS RELEASE FROM THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF 16 MARCH 2017 2 II NATIONAL LEGISLATION 5 III NATIONAL CASE LAW 6 NEWSLETTER I CORPORATE WWW.CUATRECASAS.COM NEWSLETTER I CORPORATE 2/7 NEWSLETTER CORPORATE LAW I CAPITALIZAR PROGRAMME – PRESS RELEASE FROM THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF 16 MARCH 2017 One of the priorities of the programme of the 21st Constitutional Government is to reduce the high level of corporate borrowing and to improve conditions for investment, which is why the capitalisation of companies is one
On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts cannot approve a “structured dismissal”—a dismissal with special conditions or that does something other than restoring the “prepetition financial status quo”—providing for distributions that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme absent the consent of affected creditors. Czyzewski v.Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066259, at *3 (Mar. 22, 2017).
Comsa: debt restructuring PSA Financial Services Spain: establishing an asset-backed securities fund Emesa: subscribing a collar equity swap Proposal for an EU Directive on restructuring and second chance Exit right due to no dividend distribution: end of the suspension of art.
On January 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated opinion in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., 1 ruling that Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. § 77ppp(b) (the “Act”), prohibits only non-consensual amendments to core payment terms of bond indentures.