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.

Companies have a lot more international debtors as a result of globalisation and internationalisation of trade, making the recovery of debts a lot harder. It is a good thing that the law is evolving more and more towards making the recovery of international debts simpler and faster.

Suppose a Belgian company has a claim on a French buyer, but the latter refuses to pay. The Belgian company therefore wants to seize the buyer's movable assets in France. Which steps should be taken to achieve this?

Suite à la globalisation et à l’internationalisation du commerce, les entreprises se voient confrontées, de plus en plus souvent, à des débiteurs étrangers, ce qui ne rend pas le recouvrement plus facile. C’est dès lors une bonne chose que la législation évolue de plus en plus vers un recouvrement plus simple et plus facile de dettes internationales.

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).

A recent federal bankruptcy court decision addresses important principles of fiduciary conduct (and the benefits of a state exculpatory statute) in the context of a financially distressed not-for-profit hospital. 

New Decision Affects D&O Liability

A recent federal bankruptcy court decision addresses important principles of fiduciary conduct (and the benefits of a state exculpatory statute) in the context of a financially distressed not-for-profit hospital.

In the framework of the reform of insolvency law that entered into force on 1 May 2018, the legislator has introduced important amendments regarding the liability of the directors in case of bankruptcy. These amended liability rules apply to directors of companies and not to physical persons who operate without a corporate structure.

1. Liability claim for apparent gross fault

Dans le cadre de la réforme du droit de l’insolvabilité qui est entrée en vigueur le 1er mai 2018, le législateur a opéré plusieurs modifications importantes concernant la responsabilité des administrateurs en cas de faillite. Les règles de responsabilité révisées valent pour les administrateurs de sociétés et non pour les personnes physiques qui bien qu’étant des entreprises, n’ont pas la structure d’une société.

1. Action en responsabilité pour faute grave et caractérisée

In het kader van de hervorming van het insolventierecht die op 1 mei 2018 van kracht is geworden, heeft de wetgever een aantal belangrijke wijzigingen doorgevoerd inzake de aansprakelijkheid van bestuurders bij een faillissement. De herziene aansprakelijkheidsregels gelden voor bestuurders van vennootschappen en niet voor natuurlijke personen die ondernemingen zijn maar geen vennootschapsstructuur hebben.

1. Aansprakelijkheidsvordering wegens kennelijk grove fout