The American economy is increasingly dependent upon the importation of merchandise, both raw materials and finished goods. Many of these imported goods are subject to duties imposed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), known as “ordinary duties.” In some situations, supplemental duties such as antidumping and countervailing duties, and now the new duties on aluminum and steel imposed by Executive Order, are also assessed.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently held in In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC that while Rule 3001 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism for transfers of claims, Rule 3001 is not a substantive provision allowing claims trading for notes with legally valid anti-assignment provisions.

Background

The recent decision of the London Commercial Court in PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov & Ors [2018] EWHC 1314 (Comm) highlights the importance that the Court will attach to full asset disclosure by a respondent to ensure the effectiveness of a freezing order, even in circumstances where the value of a respondent’s assets exceeds the sum frozen by the order.

Freezing Orders: What Are They?

In the recent decision in Carlos Sevilleja Garcia v Marex Financial Limited,1 the Court of Appeal helpfully summarised the justifications for the English law rule against claims for reflective loss and confirmed that the rule applies equally to unsecured creditors of a company as it does to shareholders.

Highlights

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded an Oregon bankruptcy court’s order designating recently acquired claims of a secured creditor for bad faith, holding that a bad faith finding requires “something more.” Specifically, the Court found that a bankruptcy court may not designate claims for bad faith simply because (1) a creditor offers to purchase only a subset of available claims in order to block a plan of reorganization, and/or (2) blocking the plan will adversely impact the remaining creditors.Pacific Western Bank, et al. v.

Former world number one and three-time Wimbledon champion Boris Becker, who was declared bankrupt by an order dated 21 June 2017, is claiming diplomatic immunity against ongoing bankruptcy proceedings in the High Court. Mr Becker claims his role as sports attaché to the Central African Republic (CAR) makes him immune from further actions against his assets over debts owed to private bank Arbuthnot Latham and other creditors.

These are just a few of the big high street names which have sought to compromise their obligations to creditors in recent months via a company voluntary arrangement (CVA).

CVAs are designed as a flexible method by which companies can seek to contractually alter their position regarding different creditors – each CVA will be different, but it is typical, for example, for unsecured trade creditors to be treated differently to landlords. It’s worth noting that secured creditors are not bound by a CVA, unless they agree to this.

Are Trademark Licenses Protected in Bankruptcy? The Confusion Continues

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut held that while a bankrupt licensor may reject a trademark licensing agreement, the trademark licensee may elect to retain its rights to the debtor’s trademark. The Bankruptcy Court noted that its ruling disagrees with a contrary decision issued by the First Circuit only a few months earlier.

Executory Contracts and the IP Exception

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut held that while a bankrupt licensor may reject a trademark licensing agreement, the trademark licensee may elect to retain its rights to the debtor’s trademark. The Bankruptcy Court noted that its ruling disagrees with a contrary decision issued by the First Circuit only a few months earlier.

Executory Contracts and the IP Exception

Is a foreign online customer of a bankrupt goods supplier subject to personal jurisdiction in the United States, when sued by a bankruptcy trustee for fraudulent transfers? Yes, says the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California in In re Fox Ortega Enterprises, Inc. Debtor. Michael Kasolas, Chapter 7 Tr., Plaintiff, v. Johnny Yau, Defendant., No. 16-40050, 2018 WL 2191597 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018).

Legal and Factual Background