On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling in the case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The decision resolves a circuit split, holding that a licensee may retain its right to use licensed trademarks, notwithstanding the debtor-licensor’s rejection of the contract in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court’s decision has potentially far-reaching implications.

In normal circumstances, a director’s primary duty (owed to the company, not the company’s shareholders or the corporate group) is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its shareholders as a whole. When a company enters a period of financial distress (the so-called “zone of insolvency”) there is a shift of emphasis in the duties of the directors: directors must consider the interests of the company’s creditors and, depending on the extent of the financial distress, may need to prioritise such interests over those of its members.

When a company enters a period of financial distress, directors must consider the interests of the company’s creditors and, depending on the extent of the financial distress, may need to prioritise such interests over those of its members. In such distressed situations, the key current heads of liability directors may face (for which they may potentially incur personal liabilities) include wrongful trading, fraudulent trading, misfeasance and breach of duty.

On April 23, 2019, Ropes & Gray, representing a large group of shareholder defendants, won a decision in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that provides potential fraudulent transfer protection for payments made to shareholders in leveraged buyouts, stock redemptions and other securities transactions.

Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Claims and the Securities Safe Harbor

The Belgian legislature once again recently improved the statutory framework for business restructuring. Thus, any business - a broad concept that covers not only companies and non-profits but also independent contractors - in financial difficulty may request the opening of judicial reorganisation proceedings (procédure en réorganisation judiciaire), commonly referred to by insiders as "PRJ".

The Dutch Supreme Court today confirmed the decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeals which found that the bankruptcy of Russian oil company Yukos cannot be recognised in the Netherlands because it came about in a manner which violates Dutch public policy. Today's decision marks the end of a court battle that lasted more than a decade. 

28 November 2018

NautaDutilh

Recovery and Resolution (Insurers) Act

FCS Financial Law

Claiming damages for the loss/harm sustained by a lessor as a result of the lessee’s insolvency (i.e. ”loss owing to vacancy” [leegstandschade]) is an issue that comes up again and again. The Dutch Supreme Court has rendered a series of rulings on this matter, the most recent of which dates from 17 February 2017. On 3 July 2018, the Court of Appeal in The Hague delivered its judgment after the case had been referred back to it.

De Raad voor Onroerende Zaken ("ROZ") heeft op 4 juni 2018 een nieuw model voor de bankgarantie gepubliceerd. Het model voor de bankgarantie en de handleiding daarbij zijn te downloaden via de website van de ROZ.