Das Oberlandesgericht München hat in einem bisher unveröffentlichten Hinweisbeschluss^[1] die Rechtsauffassung des Oberlandesgerichts Celle^[2] und des Oberlandesgerichts Düsseldorfs^[3] bestätigt, dass für Ansprüche des Insolvenzverwalters gegen Geschäftsführer wegen Zahlungen trotz Insolvenzreife kein Versicherungsschutz unter einer D&O-Versicherung besteht. Daneben hat das Oberlandesgericht München auch zur Verteilung der Darlegungs- und Beweislast in Abtretungskonstellationen Stellung bezogen.

Discovery (Northampton) Ltd & others v Debenhams Retail Ltd & others [2019] EWHC 2441(Ch)

Company Voluntary Arrangements (“CVAs”) are seen as most unfair by landlords who are often forced to continue to make a supply of premises at an imposed reduced rent.

Each year amendments are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The amendments address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. The rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and technically subject to Congressional disapproval.

Only A Few Rule Amendments This Year. Unlike previous years, there are only four rule amendments expected to take effect on December 1, 2019. Here they are:

Mit rechtskräftig gewordenem Urteil vom 06.03.2019 (Az. 5 O 234/17) hat das Landgericht Wiesbaden entschieden, dass es dem Insolvenzverwalter und allen versicherten Personen verwehrt ist, Versicherungsschutz für Inanspruchnahmen zu verlangen, die einer Versicherungsperiode zuzuordnen sind, für die der Insolvenzverwalter die Nichterfüllung des D&O-Versicherungsvertrags gewählt hat.

In a final ruling dated 6 March 2019 (Case ref.: 5 O 234/17), the Regional Court of Wiesbaden decided that the insolvency administrator and all insured persons are not entitled to claim insurance coverage for claims attributable to an insurance period for which the insolvency administrator has chosen not to fulfi l the D&O insurance contract.

Introduction

A Big Answer To A Big Question. After dividing the courts for a number of years, we finally have the answer to the big question of whether rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor deprives the licensee of the right to use the trademark. Here’s the question on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v Tempnology, LLC case:

The US Supreme Court decided what the International Trademark Association (INTA) called "the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing" when it ruled on May 20, 2019, that bankrupt companies cannot use bankruptcy law to revoke a trademark license.

In its 8-1 decision, the court resolved a circuit split by holding that a debtor's rejection of a trademark license under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to "reject any executory contract" (a contract that neither party has finished performing), amounts only to a breach of the license.

Judgment was handed down in the High Court this morning, in a case where recognition of a winding-up of a solvent foreign investment fund was granted under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("CBIR").

This is the first time that the English Court has examined in detail the UNCITRAL Model Law on insolvency and the interplay with its Guides to Enactment, as well as case law from various jurisdictions concerning its application to solvent scenarios. Mrs Justice Falk found that:

As discussed in an earlier post called “Moving Up: Bankruptcy Code Dollar Amounts Will Increase On April 1, 2019,” various dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code and related statutory provisions were increased for cases filed on or after today, April 1, 2019.