The Third Circuit recently took a “pragmatic approach” when affirming lower court orders denying a stay of bankruptcy settlement distributions pending appeal. In re S.S. Body Armor I, Inc., 2019 WL 2588533 (3d Cir. June 25, 2019). After holding that the district court’s “stay denial order” was “final” for jurisdictional purposes, it also confirmed “the applicable standard of review” on motions for stays pending appeals.
Relevance
This ThinkHouse TUPE Club Q&A deals with our Top 10 questions on:
- the key employment issues in Administrations and Liquidations; and
- how TUPE applies when there is an insolvency situation.
Q1. What is the effect of insolvency on contracts of employment?
There are various types of insolvency proceedings and these are designed to achieve various different end results. The different types of insolvency also have different consequences for the entity and employees.
Administration
On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling of key significance for trademark licensing and for acquisitions, investments, financings and other transactions in which trademark licenses are a key value driver. In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC,[1] the Court held, 8-1, that where the licensor of a trademark rejects a trademark license in bankruptcy, the rejection does not deprive the licensee of its rights to use the licensed trademark(s).
A strata wind-up is an excellent way to realize the economic potential of a multi-unit residential property ("strata") by leveraging the value of each strata unit in the strata as a whole to a developer that may want to develop on the strata's property. However, the wind-up process is complex, involving the intersection of real estate, condominium law ("strata property law"), and the law of restructuring.
Winding up of a strata corporation
A bankruptcy court decision recently detailed how courts applying Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 303(i) can sanction creditors who “abuse… the power given to [them]… to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition.” In re Anmuth Holdings LLC, 2019 WL 1421169, * 1 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2019).
A bankruptcy trustee was “not entitled to avoid” a secured lender’s “lien under the Bankruptcy Code” (“Code”), held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Sept. 11, 2019. In re 180 Equipment, LLC, 2019 WL 4296751, *6 (7th Cir. Sept. 11, 2019). The court rejected the trustee’s argument that the lender’s “lien [was] avoidable because the [lender’s] financing statement failed to properly indicate the secured collateral.” Id., at 1.
Two priority issues arise between creditors of a common debtor:
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on April 23, 2019, denied the litigation trustee’s motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint that would have asserted constructive fraudulent transfer claims against 5,000 Tribune Company (“Tribune”) shareholders. In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2019). The safe harbor of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) barred the trustee’s proposed claims, held the court. Id., at * 12.
The Court of Appeal decision in Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd turns on the wording of that particular contract, but was, in part, unexpected.
This decision does not reflect the generally held view (prior to this case) that liquidated damages will be recoverable until the point of termination at least.
Background