Executive Summary
In any bankruptcy, there are inevitably winners and losers. The winners do not always do virtuous acts to win and the losers are not necessarily evil. Rather, dividing up a limited pie, the bankruptcy courts must leave some creditors short-changed. A good example is the recent 7th Circuit case involving a supplier and a lender. (hhgregg, Inc. et al. (Debtor). Whirlpool Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, and GACP Finance Co., LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-3363, February 11, 2020) |
Italy is already implementing the Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 June 2019 (the “Directive”), related to the preventive restructuring frameworks, discharge and measures aiming at increasing the effectiveness of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures, that Member States shall implement within 17 July 2021.
L’Italia sembra essere in netto anticipo nel recepimento della direttiva (UE) 2019/1023 del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio del 20 giugno 2019 (la “Direttiva”), riguardante i quadri di ristrutturazione preventiva, l'esdebitazione e le interdizioni, e le misure volte ad aumentare l'efficacia delle procedure di ristrutturazione, insolvenza ed esdebitazione, che gli Stati membri dovranno fare propria entro il 17 luglio 2021.
Secured creditors filing a UCC financing statement under Article 9 must include a description of the collateral. (UCC 9-502) UCC Article 9 adopts a “notice filing” system, under which the purpose of the filing is to provide notice of a security interest in the specified collateral. UCC Article 9 does not require a precise (e.g., serial number) description. Even so, there has been much litigation over the sufficiency of the collateral descriptions in UCC financing statements.
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.
Il 14 febbraio 2019 è stato pubblicato sulla Gazzetta Ufficiale il Decreto Legislativo 12 gennaio 2019, n. 14 che, in attuazione della Legge delega 19 ottobre 2017, n. 155, introduce il nuovo “Codice della crisi d’impresa e dell’insolvenza”.
On 14 February 2019, the Legislative Decree 12 January 2019, n. 14, implementing the Delegated Law 19 October 2017, no. 155 and introducing the new “Code of the business crisis and insolvency” was published in Official Gazette.
In application of the transitional provisions, the regulatory measure (hereinafter only “Code”) will enter into force 18 months after its publication, with the exception of certain provisions (including the express repeals in the criminal sector), which are deemed to be in force, 30 days after the publication of the Code.
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.