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:

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.

Overview

The recent approval by the Irish High Court of a scheme of arrangement that restructured US$1.65bn of liabilities of Ballantyne Re plc (Ballantyne) confirms Dublin as one of the most effective restructuring venues in the EU. The detailed decision of Justice Barniville (available here) offers significant precedential value and is a clear endorsement that Irish schemes can be used to implement complex cross border restructurings. The Irish statute governing schemes is very similar to that of England and Wales.

Essence of the Ballantyne scheme:

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.

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.

Cash flow is the life blood of the construction industry, goes the mantra. Construction projects often have long supply chains. When cash stops flowing down the chain, businesses can fail. There is all too much recent evidence of this.

Someone in the chain (say, a main contractor) could seek to provide in a contract that it does not have to pay the party below (subcontractor) until it has been paid by the party above (employer). This is a 'pay-when-paid' clause.

The Supreme Court of the United States granted Mission Product Holdings’ petition for certiorari to determine whether a debtor-licensor can terminate the rights of trademark licensees by rejecting its trademark licensing agreements as part of its bankruptcy case. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, Case No. 17-1657 (Supr. Ct. Oct. 26, 2018). The specific question presented is:

The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance claim for a “blocking right” and right of first refusal under a patent transfer agreement, addressing the district court’s proper exclusion of expert testimony on whether the debtor was insolvent at the time of the relevant transfer. In re: Teltronics, Inc., Case No. 16-16140 (11th Cir. Oct. 2, 2018) (Kaplan, J).