On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC nka Old Cold LLC, (Case No. 17-1657, U.S. Supreme Court, May 20, 2019) ("Tempnology"). The U.S. Supreme Court decided that a trademark licensee can continue to use a trademark license even when a bankrupt trademark licensor rejects the license agreement.

In the recent case of Re M.D.Y. Construction Limited [2018] IEHC 676, an Interim Examiner made an application pursuant to section 541 of the Companies Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”) to have proposals for a scheme of arrangement confirmed by the High Court. Interestingly, the application was made before the Interim Examiner’s appointment had been confirmed by the Court.

Section 541 of the 2014 Act provides, inter alia, that the report of an Examiner shall be set down for approval by the Court as soon as may be after receipt of the report by the Court.

Since the introduction of The Companies Act 2014, directors have relied on the Summary Approval Procedure as a means of sanctioning certain activities that are otherwise prohibited.

While it has been a welcome development in simplifying financial transactions, directors need to be mindful of the appropriate steps to be taken so they are not leaving themselves open to committing an offence or being personally liable for the debts of a company.

Background

The Great Recession of 2008 may seem a distant memory. September 15, 2018 is the 10th anniversary of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, and often seen as the point at which a garden-variety recession turned into the Great Recession, with catastrophic results severely impacting the livelihood of millions.

After a January 2018 decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, trademark licensees are faced with uncertainty again. (In re Tempnology, LLC, 879 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 2018)). In our previous update, we discussed a 7th Circuit case dealing with the same issue. At the time we predicted that the holding in the case may have resolved the issue. (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 686 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2012)). But that was wrong.

The High Court has refused a challenge by a liquidator to an invoice discounting agreement entered into by the Company prior to liquidation.

The liquidator argued that the invoice discounting agreement was in fact a loan agreement under which the Bank took a charge over the Company’s book debts. If that was the case, then those funds would be funds in the liquidation and the Bank an unsecured creditor, because the loan agreement was not registered and therefore void as against the liquidator.

The High Court recently rejected an appeal by KBC Bank Ireland (“KBC”) to write down a portion of a debtor couple’s mortgage due to the uncertainty in the ability of the debtors to repay the warehousing portion of the loan. The Personal Insolvency Arrangement (“PIA”) which had been approved by the Circuit Court was upheld.

In a May 2, 2017 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the fate of a stream of rental payments from the bankrupt owner of a residential complex. (In re: Town Center Flats, LLC, No. 16-1812, May 2, 2017, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals) The case resembled a similar one, far more controversial and with a different result, from 1993. (Octagon Gas Systems, Inc. v. Rimmer, 995 F.2nd 948, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1993) The Octagon Gas case roiled the factoring and receivables purchasing industry.

A recent High Court case has brought about a change in the status quo involving personal insolvency arrangements and separated spouses. Banks were previously unable to complete deals with one spouse without the mutual cooperation of both parties. However the decision of JD & Personal Insolvency Acts1 has altered this position.

Recent Events

The federal district court in New Jersey recently denied an appeal by maritime creditors of Hanjin to lift bankruptcy protections and allow arrest of Hanjin's vessels in and near U.S. ports. The federal district court judge agreed with the bankruptcy judge's grant of blanket protection to Hanjin and directed creditors of Hanjin to file claims in the Korean bankruptcy proceeding. Those claims are now due by October 25, 2016 in the Korean proceedings, according to an amended order issued by the Korean judge.