This blog refers to Bettina Goletz’s blog on “Limits on non-compete and non-solicitation clauses under German law”. We have recently been asked whether the employee is entitled to compensation payments under a post-contractual non-compete clause in the situation where the employing company files for insolvency.

Introduction

When the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) was introduced into Australian law in 2008, Australian admiralty practitioners expressed concern that the legislation which enacted the Model Law into Australian law did not take into account its potential impact on the right to arrest a ship in Australia.  The concern was that the Model Law would prevent parties from arresting ships in Australia, if the shipowner or charterer was the subject of foreign insolvency proceedings.  

The English Court of Appeal decision in Caterpillar v John Holt & Company, and its analysis of “retention of title” and “no set-off” clauses, will be of interest to commodity traders, compliance officers and legal counsel in industries dealing with energy and natural resources internationally.

Employees’ rights in bankruptcy in the UAE On the face of it, employees’ rights in the UAE seem to be well protected by the bankruptcy laws. Under Article 713(1) of Federal Law No. 18 of 1993 (Commercial Transactions Law), the wages and salaries of workers that have become due 30 days prior to the adjudication of bankruptcy may be paid on a super-priority level (“regardless of any other debt”) by the bankruptcy trustee. However, there is some uncertainty as to whether employees would be paid before secured creditors as the bankruptcy laws remain largely untested in the UAE courts.

The Ninth Circuit has extended an additional level of protection for company publications that take the form of blogs. In reference to the level of fault required to prove liability for an allegedly defamatory posting, the court explained that it is irrelevant whether a blogger is a member of an institutional press corps or a private entity.

On January 17, 2014, Chief Judge Kevin Gross of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision  limiting the right of a holder of a secured claim to credit bid at a bankruptcy sale. In re Fisker Auto. Holdings, Inc.,  Case No. 13-13087-KG, 2014 WL 210593 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 17, 2014). Fisker raises significant issues for lenders who  are interested in selling their secured debt and for parties who buy secured debt with the goal of using the debt to  acquire the borrower’s assets through a credit bid.

Northern District of Oklahoma Chief Bankruptcy Judge Terrence L. Michael’s introduction to the opinion in In re Harrison (2013 WL 6859303) serves as a good introduction to this post:

One of the ironic issues for failing banks has been the fact that banks that they have had to continue to deal with their borrowers and depositors in the ordinary course of business even though they are already in the queue for resolution by the FDIC. So for example, loans continue to get renewed and documents executed. What happens if you renew a loan shortly before the bank fails, do you have some sort of defense to enforcement of the loan when the successor bank or the FDIC makes demand on you?

On 13th August 2013, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and attorneys general from six US states and the District of Columbia filed suit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia to block the merger between US Airways and American Airlines. Days before, a group of American Airlines customers filed a claim that the merger would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

When the Fifth Circuit, in a case of first impression for that circuit and all of its sister circuit, last year ruled in In re Chilton, 11-40377, 2012 WL 762924 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2012) that inherited IRAs constituted retirement funds within the “plain meaning” of §522 of the Bankruptcy Code and were thus exempt from the bankruptcy estate, under § 522(d)(12) (the federal exemptions), many thought the issue was settled.