At the III Commercial Law Conference held on June 7, 2019, the Council of the Federal Justice approved Precedent No. 104, according to which there will be no transfer of liabilities regarding financial penalties imposed under Law No. 12.846/2013 (Clean Company Act) on the acquirer of assets when the acquisition is based on article 60 of Law No. 11,101/2005 (Brazilian Restructuring and Bankruptcy Law).

Introduction The UK Government has announced that it will be introducing legislation under which the UK tax authorities1 will move up the creditor hierarchy in English insolvency proceedings2 in respect of certain taxes paid by

Taggart v. Lorenzen, No. 18-489

Today, the Supreme Court held 9-0 that a creditor cannot be held in contempt of court for violating a bankruptcy discharge order if there is a “fair ground of doubt” as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.

On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, No. 17-1657. In an 8-1 decision, and in a majority opinion authored by Justice Kagan, the Court held that the debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code “has the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy” and, as such, the debtor, through such a rejection, could not rescind the non-debtor’s licensee’s right to continue to use the trademarks; in short, the debtor-licensor’s rejection of the license “cannot revoke the license.” Slip Op. at 16-17.

Yesterday, in an 8-1 decision, the US Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.

Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, No. 17-1657

Today, the Supreme Court held in an 8-1 decision that when a debtor, acting under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, rejects a contract licensing its trademarks, the contract is not rescinded and the debtor thus cannot revoke the trademark license.

On April 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in fraudulent transfer litigation arising out of the 2007 leveraged buyout of the Tribune Company,1 ruled on one of the significant issues left unresolved by the US Supreme Court in its Merit Management decision last year.

When executing public M&A transactions, dealmakers need to understand local market practice as well as the local regulatory environment.

The first step in determining if a subscription credit facility, often called a capital call facility (a “Subscription Facility”), is a viable option for a private equity or similar investment fund (a “Fund”) is to diligence the limited partnership agreement or other organizational document of the Fund (the “LPA”). Subscription Facility lenders usually require that specific concepts and language be included in an LPA in order to provide a Subscription Facility without additional credit support, such as investor consent letters.

Both the First Energy Solutions and PG&E bankruptcies have seen proceedings regarding power purchase and similar agreements (PPAs) that raise this question.

Background

Contracts often contain provisions that enable a party to terminate or modify the contract based on the other party's bankruptcy filing, insolvency or deteriorating financial condition. In general, the Bankruptcy Code renders these types of provisions (sometimes referred to as "ipso facto" clauses) ineffective. Specifically, under section 365(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code (emphasis added):