Just about every year changes are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The revisions address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others.

The In re Tempnology LLC bankruptcy case in New Hampshire has produced yet another important decision involving trademarks and Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code. This time the decision is from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (“BAP”). Although the BAP’s Section 365(n) discussion is interesting, even more significant is its holding on the impact of rejection of a trademark license.

Before a bankruptcy court may confirm a chapter 11 plan, it must determine if any of the persons voting to accept the plan are “insiders,”i.e., individuals or entities with a close relationship to the debtor. Because the Bankruptcy Code’s drafters believed that insider transactions warrant heightened scrutiny the classification of a creditor as an “insider” can have a profound impact on a debtor’s ability to reorganize.

The UK’s Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has published a Consultation Paper (CP) “CP32/16 Dealing with a market turning event in the general insurance sector“. The CP attaches a draft Supervisory Statement (SS), which sets out the PRA’s expectations “in relation to significant general insurance loss events which might affect firms’ solvency and future business plans“.

News of the bankruptcy of one of the world’s largest ocean carriers, Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (Hanjin), continues to have a ripple effect globally, creating legal entanglements and disrupting company supply chains. Some ports, terminals, stevedores, truckers and rail carriers have refused to service Hanjin vessels and containers for fear of not getting paid.

A recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in PAH Litigation Trust v. Water Street Healthcare Partners L.P. (In re Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc.), Case No. 13-12965 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. June 20, 2016), may limit the types of transactions that are subject to the “safe harbor” protections of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Key Notes:

A statutory instrument has recently been passed providing that the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 will, finally, come into force on 1 August 2016, some six years after it was first passed.

The act will replace and, in general, streamline the procedures put in place by the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930. Perhaps the two most significant changes brought about by the 2010 Act are:

The Copenhagen Reinsurance Company (CopRe) asked the UK High Court to make an Order sanctioning the intra-group transfer of the whole of its (re)insurance business to the Marlon Insurance Company (Marlon). Each of CopRe and Marlon wrote US excess and surplus lines insurance, and each of them maintained an excess and surplus lines trust fund in New York. The purpose of the transfer was to simplify the structure of the Enstar group. If the transfer was sanctioned, CopRe would be dissolved without winding up.

My spouse and I visited Chicago years ago, and confusedly started driving the wrong way down a one-way street.  We were promptly pulled over by one of the Windy City’s finest.  I gave him my best smile, and said, “Sorry, officer, we’re from out of town.”  He grunted, “Don’t they have one-way streets where you come from?”  But he didn’t give us a ticket.  A recent disciplinary opinion out of Oklahoma, involving a tech-challenged bankruptcy lawyer, brings the story to mind.

E-filing woes bring bankruptcy court discipline