In Budimex SA (C224/18), the CJEU was asked by a Polish Court to determine the time of supply in relation to a construction contract where no invoice was issued in accordance with articles 63 and 66 of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD), which provide that the chargeable event for VAT purposes is when the services are supplied.
The Supreme Court recently limited the ability of debtors to use contract rejection in bankruptcy to shed unwanted trademark licensees. But the Court acknowledged that the result could change if the trademark licensing agreement had different termination rights. Going forward, parties entering into trademark licensing agreements will need to consider this decision carefully as they negotiate termination rights in the event of a bankruptcy by the licensor.
On Monday, May 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision holding that a bankrupt company’s decision to reject an existing license of its trademarks does not terminate a licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademarks.
With the May 1 order, the Commission reaffirms its view that it has concurrent jurisdiction over debtors’ efforts to reject their FERC-jurisdictional contracts in bankruptcy. Further developments in judicial proceedings in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits are expected.
On May 1, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s requests for rehearing of two commission orders asserting concurrent jurisdiction with bankruptcy courts over the disposition of wholesale power contracts PG&E seeks to reject through bankruptcy.[1]
On July 31, 2018 the International Swaps and Derivatives Association published the ISDA 2018 US Resolution Stay Protocol (the US Protocol). The US Protocol is intended to enable parties to ISDA Master Agreements and similar Protocol Covered Agreements (PCAs) to contractually recognize the cross-border application of special resolution regimes applicable to global systemically important entities and their affiliates.
In this article, we provide a broad overview of the US Protocol and relevant resolution stay rules, then describe the effect and operation of the US Protocol.
On April 15, 2019, President Petro Poroshenko signed the Code on Bankruptcy Proceedings. The text of the law was officially published on April 20 and is available in Ukrainian. The new law aims to strengthen the rights of creditors, improve the procedure of debtors’ assets sale at bankruptcy auctions, provide clear mechanisms for restoring solvency of debtors, and enhance the overall efficiency of bankruptcy proceedings.
While a range of outcomes, including a departure under the terms of the current Withdrawal Agreement, remains possible, it is important for businesses to plan for a no-deal Brexit, in which the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement or other deal. Here we look at the potential impact of a no-deal Brexit on cross-border corporate recovery and insolvency.
Key issues
Immediately following the results of the UK referendum on exiting the EU in June 2016, we wrote about the potential impact of Brexit on cross-border restructuring and insolvency work. As we identified then, the key issue in this area is the potentially significant implications of losing the reciprocal effect of the EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings and the Brussels Regulation (recast). In this article we focus on the impact of the loss of recognition under the Insolvency Regulation.
Bankruptcy Code section 363(f) allows a debtor to sell an asset free and clear of interests (such as liens and leases) under certain conditions − for example, if the interest is subject to a bona fide dispute, the interest holder consents, or the debt secured by the lien is fully satisfied.