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.
Dixon v Radley House Partnership (A Firm) [2016] EWHC 2511 (TCC)
The claimant (D) brought negligence proceedings against the defendant (R) a firm of architects, for refurbishment works.
In the draft claim form, D had referred to a loss of £35,894.00 allegedly caused by negligent misrepresentation on the part of R, who had been instructed on 27 October 2007.
The draft claim form and the fee were prepared up to a value of £50,000.00 and were received by the court on 25 October 2013, less than six years after the cause of action arose.
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.
Introduction
Summary
- The farming and agricultural sector continues to experience financial pressures.
Hanjin Shipping's collapse
In order to protect its assets from creditors following its financial collapse, Hanjin obtained a rehabilitation order in Seoul on 1 September.
Different jurisdictions / approaches
One of the main difficulties arising out of the Hanjin collapse is that whilst those administering Hanjin's rehabilitation may have taken steps internationally to protect its assets, different jurisdictions have different approaches.
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“.
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.
Het hof Amsterdam heeft in het voorjaar van 2016 een uitspraak gedaan over het ontstaansmoment van vorderingen van zorgaanbieders op patiënten en/of zorgverzekeraars. Het ontstaansmoment van een vordering is relevant om in geval van een faillissement van de pandgever te kunnen bepalen of een vordering (reeds) bestond – en dus geldig kan zijn verpand – of dat een vordering nog niet bestond – en dus niet geldig kan zijn verpand.
Feitencomplex