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.
Facts
The appellant is a company trading in electrical goods which regularly supplied Edge Electrical Ltd ('Edge'). Their standard terms provided Edge with a short period of credit before payment was required.
Facts
Angove’s PTY Ltd (‘Angove’s’) is an Australian winemaker which for many years had employed D&D Wines International Ltd (‘D&D’) to distribute its products to retailers. In addition, D&D also purchased wine for itself direct from Angove’s. Their business relationship was governed by an Agency and Distribution Agreement (‘ADA’) entered in December 2011. Amongst its provisions, the ADA entitled the parties to terminate the agreement with immediate effect upon either becoming insolvent.
Facts
Mr Patel transferred Mr Mirza £620,000 to bet on shares in RBS using insider information which Mr Mirza hoped to obtain from RBS contacts. The inside information did not come through and Mr Mirza refused to return the sums to Mr Patel. Mr Patel subsequently sued Mr Mirza for recovery of the £620,000 on the
basis of unjust enrichment.
Facts
This case related to the leasehold ownership of hotel rooms. The applicants were the leaseholders of the hotel rooms and the respondent companies the lessors.
Facts
C’s appeal of his bankruptcy order failed. He then argued that pursuant to r 12.2(1) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (‘IR 12.2’) as a matter of law the costs of the unsuccessful appeal should be treated as an expense of the bankruptcy estate; alternatively they were aprovable debt in the bankruptcy. D (the PC) contended that IR 7.51A gave the court an unfettered discretion as to the form of order and sought costs against C personally as a post-bankruptcy liability.
This article was first published in Practical Law.
With the long-awaited decision of the Court of Appeal in Horton v Henry, the Looking Glass decision in Raithatha v Williamson is finally laid to rest.