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.

Supreme Administrative

Court Judgement of October 12, 2016

Case no. 0797/15

In this Judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that expenses related to employees, recorded as remuneration, salaries or wages, relevant to the limit of 15% foreseen for acceptance of the expenses with social benefits referred to in Article 43.2 of the CIT Code, are not limited to those that were subject to mandatory Social Security contributions.

South Central Administrative Court

Judgement of October 13, 2016

In judgment 297/2016 of September 22, 2016, by Commercial Court No. 6 of Madrid, the court rejects the appeal filed by a dissenting entity affected by a court-sanctioned refinancing agreement. The appeal argued the existence of a disproportionate sacrifice due to the standstill of the notarial enforcement of a pledge on shares already executed.

In its judgment 500/2016 of July 19, 2016, the Supreme Court interprets article 62.4 of the Insolvency Act, regulating the effects of contract resolution during insolvency:

If an agency agreement is resolved due to the agent being declared insolvent, the business owner must compensate the agent for clientele if the requirements under the Agency Act are met (the agent brought new clients or clearly increased transactions with existing clients, and the previous activity is still beneficial for the business owner). 

In its writ dated February 2, 2016, the First Instance Civil Court No. 38 of Barcelona raised a preliminary issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In that writ, it requested the EU court to determine whether the business practice of assigning or buying credits without offering consumers the possibility to settle the debt by paying the assignee the outstanding amount is in line with EU law.

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.