IPs are always on guard for potential conversion claims - but what happens when no title can be established? Euromex clarifies the whole mess.
The background
Whenever there is an apparent monetary debt, common practice is for a claimant to threaten a winding up petition as part of the tactics to get a potential defendant to pay up. Three weeks after a statutory demand letter is sent where an apparent debt for £750 or more exists, a winding up petition can be issued against a company which has not paid (the actual financial wellbeing of the payer is irrelevant as long as they have not paid). Whenever an apparent debt is in dispute this can be a powerful tool to unsettle a defendant.
Following insolvency, creditors and the (now insolvent) company can claim back losses from directors who breached their duties prior to the business breaking down. But it is not just formal directors – it is any individuals who actually control the company and have made themselves ‘shadow directors’ by doing so. In this way, creditors can recoup funds to meet the company’s debts from the individual directors who caused the loss of such funds.
The High Court has confirmed that all rights relating to the control of data belonging to, or being controlled by, a company at the time it entered into liquidation remain vested in the company at and following its liquidation. Liquidators are therefore not personally liable for compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of this data as they will be viewed as agents acting for the company rather than as 'data controllers'.
The recent decision of Re Bluecrest Mercantile BV saw the High Court stay proceedings for summary judgment in respect of contract debts to allow the formulation of proposals for a scheme of arrangement - is this likely to be become common practice, or is it a one-off?
The background
The past quarter has seen a spate of cases on range of administration issues. Here we take a canter through some of the more topical ones.
High Court allows appeal on rent as an expense of the administration
The Ohio General Assembly this week passed Amended Substitute House Bill 380, which requires the full disclosure of all asbestos bankruptcy trust claims made by plaintiffs with asbestos lawsuits in Ohio. The bill is headed to Governor John Kasich’s desk; he is expected to sign the bill.
Jeffrey Marks, a partner in the Vorys Cincinnati office and a member of the commercial and finance group, authored this column about the decision from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Onkyo Electronics V. Global Technovations. The column originally appeared in the September 17, 2012 edition of Bankruptcy Law360.
Case Study: Onkyo Electronics V. Global Technovations
New amendments to the Bankruptcy Rules became effective on December 1, 2011. These amendments add new requirements and potentially harsh penalties for failure to comply. An overview of those amendments follows.
Click here to view the table.
The new .XXX top-level domain that launches next month allows brand owners to “opt-out” and block their trademarks from being used in an .XXX domain name. Trademark owners may apply to reserve their trademarks, so they are not available for others to register in the .XXX domain.