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.
The Supreme Court held oral argument earlier today in the Mission Products v. Tempnology case, on the issue of the effect of rejection by a licensor of a trademark license on the licensee’s rights.
An official notice from the Judicial Conference of the United States was just published announcing that certain dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code will be increased about 6.2% this time for new cases filed on or after April 1, 2019.
The Big Question. What is the effect of rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor? Over the past few years, this blog has followed the Tempnology case out of New Hampshire raising just that issue.
Almost every 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.
How do you spot a zombie company?
Zombie companies walk amongst us. They shuffle along, failing to realise that they are undead, relying on the inaction of creditors and low interest rates to mask their fundamental lack of profitability, poor growth prospects and inability to service their debts. Denied a swift, clean demise, they endure a twilight existence that deprives their living competitors of capital and opportunities.
Once I have a contract it is binding unless the other side goes bust – right?
One party to a contract cannot unilaterally change the deal – right?
If a commercial tenant does not pay its rent the landlord can forfeit – right?
As landlords have found to their cost this year, the answer is that a CVA can challenge all of these assumptions.
A misfeasance claim under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA) is often a race against time to gather evidence and bring a claim before the limitation period expires. Not only can the breach pre-date the liquidation by years, but the difficulty is even greater where there is a maze of group companies and intra-group transfers. It takes time to properly work out whether a simple transfer of assets between group companies is actually a corporate shield hiding misappropriated assets.
House of Fraser (HOF) has been in the headlines for months. It started with reports of widening losses and being dragged down by soaring costs and a drop in consumer sales, but official comment from the 169-year old retailer remained positive. Then there were rumours of CVAs and negotiations with landlords leading to further controversy. Finally, last Friday (10 August 2018), a stock market announcement delivered the news that Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct had brought House of Fraser out of administration for £90 million, just hours after the store had announced its collapse.
As if business leaders did not have enough to contend with in the current economic and geopolitical climate, the trend towards increased personal accountability for company directors is continuing and can be expected to increase further. How can directors protect themselves? As a start it is important for both executive and non-executive directors to understand the overarching principles involved and how they link together.
The basic duties set out in the Companies Act 2006