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.
The Court of Ancona (11 October 2016) ruled that the debtor can continue to draw from existing revolving facilities, to be considered as pending contracts that do not require an authorization by the Court
The case
The Court of Appeals of Turin (5 August 2016) and the Court of Milan (25 June 2016) deal with cases of bankruptcy and concordato preventivo of the assigned debtor and confirm a broad interpretation of the limit to set-off set forth by Article 56 second para. of the Italian Bankruptcy Law
The case
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.
The Court of Rovigo (1st August 2016) confirms that the debtor shall regularly perform obligations arising after the concordato filing from an existing contract, when the debtor elects not to apply to the Court to terminate it
The case
The Court of Milan (18 April 2016) sticks to its own precedents mandating automatic termination, notwithstanding the recent decision of the Court of Cassation (19 February 2016, No. 3324) requiring that an actual prejudice for the creditors be ascertained
The case
The consequences for cross-border insolvencies will largely depend on how Brexit is implemented, but will not affect schemes of arrangement
Foreword
Understanding and mastering cross-border insolvency requires a thorough knowledge of the different domestic insolvency regimes, all of which have distinctive procedures and rules on jurisdiction and recognition of foreign proceedings. Creditors and debtors look for the most favourable system: in this framework, the UK insolvency system is usually considered “creditor-focused”.
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.