There have been increasing concerns in recent weeks that UK insolvency law does not accommodate the short-term impact of COVID-19 on many businesses. In response, the Business Secretary announced on 28 March that the UK's insolvency rules would be amended as part of the Government's wider business support package. Whilst the measures that the Government intends to implement have not yet been fully detailed, this note summarises what has been announced so far and what we might expect, based on the Business Secretary's comments.
Der Gesetzesentwurf sieht Regelungen zu Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht, Zahlungsverboten, neuen Darlehen und Sicherheiten sowie zur Insolvenzanfechtbarkeit vor:
1. Insolvenzantragspflicht
The draft bill provides regulations regarding the suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency, payment prohibitions for management, new loans and securities, as well as claw-back risks:
1. Obligation to File for Insolvency
According to the ministry, the draft bill has been prepared, and a first reading in the Bundestag is scheduled for March 25, 2020. It is expected that the law will come into force this month. According to the aforementioned press release, the temporary suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency will be subject to the following conditions:
Nach Informationen aus dem Ministerium werde derzeit am Gesetzesentwurf gearbeitet und eine erste Lesung im Bundestag sei für den 25.03.2020 geplant. Man gehe davon aus, dass das Gesetz noch in diesem Monat in Kraft treten werde.
Nach der Pressemitteilung vom 16.03.2020 soll die temporäre Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht an folgende Voraussetzungen geknüpft sein:
Alternative assets have enjoyed an unprecedented level of growth over the last decade, which looks set to continue with global AUM growing from $8.8tn in 2017 to a projected $14tn in 20231.
In May 2019, with its ruling in Mission Products Holding Inc. v. Tempnology, the US Supreme Court resolved a nationwide circuit split regarding what happens to a trademark license when the trademark owner and licensor declares bankruptcy.
In an 8–1 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and held that rejection of a trademark license in bankruptcy constitutes a breach of the license agreement, which has the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy. Therefore, a licensor’s rejection of a trademark license agreement does not rescind or terminate the licensee’s rights under the agreement, including the right to continue using the mark. Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Case No. 17-1657 (S. Ct.
Asset-backed or net asset value (NAV) facilities as a feature of the fund finance landscape are not new, but their prevalence and uses have increased over the last five years in particular.
The US Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Kagan, reversed a decision of the First Circuit and held that the rejection of a trademark license agreement under Bankruptcy Code Section 365 (11 U.S.C. § 365) constitutes a breach of the license agreement that has the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy. Therefore, the licensor’s rejection of the license agreement does not rescind or terminate the licensee’s rights under the license agreement, including the right to continue using the mark. Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Case No.