In our Intellectual Property Law Update of December 2016 we advised you of the recent decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit Court of Appeals (the “BAP”) in Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology (In re Tempnology, LLC) upholding the rights of a licensee of trademarks to continue use of trademarks after the debtor’s rejection of the trademark license. As set forth below, the First Circuit recently reversed that decision.  

The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1966[1] marks the first time the BC Supreme Court has rejected an application to wind-up a strata corporation pursuant to Bill 40 under the Strata Property Act

In In re Hungry Horse, LLC, Adversary Proceeding No. 16-11222 (Bankr. D. N.M. September 20, 2017) (“Hungry Horse”), the New Mexico Bankruptcy Court reminded us that many U.S. Supreme Court opinions can be limited in scope and do not necessarily dispose of all potential remedies to an issue.

The Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal brought by the Alberta Energy Regulator and the Orphan Well Association from the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in Re Redwater Energy Corporation. A majority of the panel held that the provisions of the provincial legislation governing certain actions of licensees of oil and gas assets do not apply to receivers and trustees in bankruptcy of insolvent companies, given the paramountcy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act over provincial legislation where the governing provisions conflict.

Given the substantial amount of capital invested in Canadian businesses by American investors a considerable number of trust indenture documents are governed by US law and are “qualified” under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the “TIA”).

As we reported in our March 2017 bulletin "And then there were none; Ontario has repealed the Bulk Sales Act", the Bulk Sales Act (Ontario) (the “BSA”) was repealed as a result of the coming into force of Schedule 3 of Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act, 2017.

When a lender makes an interest bearing loan to a borrower for a fixed term, the contract may provide that the borrower cannot repay the principal sum before maturity. This is often referred to as a “no call” provision. The intent of this provision is to protect the lender’s expected return on its investment during the term of the contract. Otherwise, the lender could be faced with the loss of interest payments that the borrower would have otherwise paid to the lender.

In In re NewPage Corporation, et al., Adversary Proceeding No. 13-52429 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 13, 2017), a Delaware Bankruptcy Court applied a unique defense to certain preferential transfers targeted by a liquidating trustee. The defense focuses on a commonly overlooked element of a preferential transfer, section 547(b)(5).

Preference 101

State and federal laws provide numerous protections to secured parties to preserve their interests in collateral. As secured parties well know, however, these protections become more and more limited when the collateral is pledged to multiple secured parties. Issues, like priority of interests and liens, become more prevalent when the collateral at issue falls in value and multiple secured parties are fighting to enforce their interests in order to satisfy their debts.

State and federal laws provide numerous protections to secured parties to preserve their interests in collateral.  As secured parties well know, however, these protections become more and more limited when the collateral is pledged to multiple secured parties.  Issues, like priority of interests and liens, become more prevalent when the collateral at issue falls in value and multiple secured parties are fighting to enforce their interests in order to satisfy their debts.