In brief
A recent decision by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) –v- Apple Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 109 provides useful guidance on the key aspects of shadow directorships and to what extent advices can be given by an interested party such as a financial accountant or a lender to a debtor without that interested party falling within the definition of "shadow director".
Background
The law of "shadow directors" means that a person who effectively controls a board of a company, even though that person is not a director, may find himself being legally classified as a director of the company. That carries with it the threat of legal liability for the company's insolvent trading debts in the event that the company goes into liquidation.
We reported on the first instance decision in this litigation last year (see here). The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently delivered judgment on the liquidators' appeal.
Section 502(e)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to seek disallowance of certain types of contingent claims to avoid being twice liable on a single obligation. It has the added benefits of facilitating debtors’ efficient exit from bankruptcy and ensuring that unsecured creditors are paid in a timely fashion. Debtors commonly seek Section 502(e)(1)(B) relief for claims involving environmental remediations or tort lawsuits, for example personal injury actions.
Google stepped closer to acquiring Nortel’s portfolio of 6,000 telecommunications, wireless and Internet patents on Monday as courts in the U.S. and Canada approved the web search giant’s “stalking horse” offer of $900 million for those patents. Announced on April 4, Google’s offer effectively constitutes the opening bid in an auction that will be decided at a joint hearing of the U.S. and Canadian courts on June 30. The auction also opens the latest chapter in the ongoing bankruptcy process for Nortel.
Remember when I wrote a glowing column about a Master Development and Supply Agreement Apple and its lawyers drafted? It was one of the most-read posts I’ve written, so I bet a good number of you do. Since the post was so popular, and since there have been some, well, we’ll say “unanticipated consequences” for Apple, I thought it warranted some follow up.
This post comes to you based on a story by the always-excellent Matt Levine of BloombergView. Evidently Apple loaned a company called GT Advanced Technologies a bunch of money so GTAT could develop and supply Apple with sapphire screens for a long time. Anyway, there may have been a default under part of that agreement, and GTAT filed for bankruptcy protection because that default was going to ruin everything (at leas
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, equating a covenant not to sue under a patent with a license, has concluded that a trustee in bankruptcy cannot unilaterally reject the covenant as an executory contract. In re Spansion, Case Nos. 11-3323, -3324 (3rd Cir., Dec. 21, 2012) (Scirica, J.).
Spansion and Apple settled a patent dispute at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) regarding flash memory products, with Spansion agreeing to dismiss its case and to refrain from filing related actions. In pertinent part, the agreement stated:
What’s the News?
A US Bankruptcy Judge recently approved the sale of a package of RadioShack’s intellectual property assets—including consumer data obtained from RadioShack customers—to General Wireless Inc., the hedge fund affiliate that acquired over 1,700 RadioShack stores in February. The sale was not without controversy.
A consortium uniting Apple, Inc. and Microsoft with other top players in the software, electronics and wireless handset industries outplayed Google in a bankruptcy court auction for Nortel’s patent portfolio, posting a winning offer of $4.5 billion for the trove of 6,000 patents that cover fourth-generation wireless, data networking, Internet, and semiconductor technologies.