In a recent decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a situation that is the bane of any commercial and business attorney. A legal document contained an error. But in this case, the error was so extreme and obvious that the court was willing to reform the document to correct the error, in the face of other cases where courts refused to let parties escape from their mistakes. In re: Equipment Acquisition Resources (7th Cir., No. 1103905 decided on August 9, 2012)

In a recent important decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a trademark licensor could not use its bankruptcy to deny the rights of a licensee to use the trademark pursuant to a pre-bankruptcy agreement. (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-3920, decided July 9, 2012) This decision creates a conflict among the federal circuits, which often means the U.S. Supreme Court must eventually decide the issue.

One of the benefits to a corporate form of entity is the protection of shareholders from liability for obligations of the corporation. Of course, as we all know, there are still legal claims which could impose liability on a corporate shareholder for obligations of the corporation. In a recent case, a former executive of a corporation tried to assert a tortious interference claim against a majority shareholder, when it terminated severance payments that were owed to the executive. (Nation v. American Capital, Ltd., 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No.

As some may be aware, the Court of Session last year issued a Practice Note on the subject of making applications to extend the period of administration beyond the initial 12 month period. 

The current position is that 8 players have been reported as having objected to their contracts of employment transferring to the "new Rangers". Charles Green has apparently threatened to litigate any departing players given that, in his view, they are in breach of contract.

Of all the headlines related to Rangers’ current financial plight one related to the world of sales finance is probably a surprise. However, Rangers’ administrators recently sought the opinion of the Court of Session on the club’s well publicised deal with Ticketus, under which Rangers sold to Ticketus rights to future season ticket sales.  Although the Ticketus deal is not, strictly, an invoice financing Lord Hodge’s opinion touches on several questions directly relevant to sales finance.
 

The Scottish Government launched a consultation on the question of the reform of Scotland’s bankruptcy law earlier this year, and a lengthy and detailed consultation paper was released.  Those of us who have heard the Accountant in Bankruptcy speak at conferences and the like over recent months eagerly awaited a discussion document which would reflect her guarded admission that things had perhaps swung rather too far in favour of debtors, and the time was right to try to redress that balance by looking towards the impact of debt on creditors.

This blog is supposed to be about real estate, mostly commercial real estate.  So when one of my Celtic-supporting partners who has been watching avidly every twist and turn of the Rangers saga said I should read the latest court judgement and what it said about property law, I was a little surprised.  But there is quite a lot that is relevant to what we do on a day to day basis.

In an earlier blog I touched upon the belief which exists within certain parts of the market that there is still a way to go in the re-pricing of non-prime assets. Some commentators are predicting that this re-pricing will take place through 2012 and into 2013, the hope being that we will start to see greater activity in the secondary market in the second half of next year.

The Court of Appeal has clarified in the case of Key2law (Surrey) LLP v Gaynor De’Antiquis [2011] EWCA Civ 1567 that administration proceedings do not constitute “insolvency proceedings which have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor” in terms of regulation 8(7) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 and therefore fall outside the scope of regulation 8(7).