In the matter of One.Tel Limited (in liquidation) [2014] NSWSC 1892
An Analysis of Ohio’s Amended Receivership Law Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP January 2015 © Copyright 2015, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP. All Rights Reserved. vorys.com Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................1 Affected Statutes..........................................................................2 Grounds for Appointment............................................................2 Scope of Receiver’s Authority – “Property Receivers” vs.
In the recent decision of Pt Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd [2014] WASCA 178, the Western Australian Court of Appeal unanimously found that the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC) were valid insofar as they empower the Court to ‘freeze’ local assets ahead of a possible foreign judgment.
Introduction
Owen, in the Matter of RiverCity Motorway Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (“RiverCity”) [2014] FCA 1008
In a recent decision in a Delaware Chapter 11 case, the court took the unusual step of capping the amount of a secured lender’s loan that could be used in the lender’s credit bid in a Section 363 sale.
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.