As 2022 drew to a close, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved a settlement between PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals and SFJ Pharmaceuticals over their ill-fated drug development financing partnership. This court approval ended a legal saga that began two years ago, when PhaseBio, a public biopharmaceutical company developing a novel drug to control bleeding in certain patients, entered into an agreement with SFJ, a company that finances and supports drug development, to fund up to $120 million to advance PhaseBio’s pivotal Phase III trial for the drug.

In 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a final rule (“Rule”) that amends Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. part 1006, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”). The Rule became effective on November 30, 2021. Because the FDCPA was implemented over four decades ago, the Rule is designed to interpret and further the goals of the FDCPA in present day. The Rule places additional restrictions on debt collection practices and addresses communications regarding debt collection.

Scope of the Rule

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of a debtor who sought to avoid a judgment lien under California’s homestead exemption law.

In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that, when a judgment lien impairs a debtor’s state-law homestead exemption, the Bankruptcy Code requires courts to determine the exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled in the absence of the lien.

This article will discuss whether or not a winding-up petition or bankruptcy petition can be based upon a liquidated amount of crypto which is due and payable by one party to another (a crypto-debt).

An example of such a case could be where party A agrees to transfer 100 widgets to party B in exchange for five bitcoin. Assume party A delivers the widgets, and party B accepts receipt and raises no issue with the widgets, and does not dispute their liability to transfer five bitcoin to party B.

Flight v. Leblanc 2022 ONCA 831, argued by Lucy Sun and Jason Squire of Lerners, involved an interesting intersection of limitations law and insolvency practice. We were retained by the respondent on the appeal of a summary judgment motion dismissing the action (we did not act at first instance).

Diego Sierra and Jessika Rocha, Von Wobeser y Sierra, SC

This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's the Americas Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

In summary

Last month, Judge Caproni of the Southern District of New York issued a ruling stating that if a commercial lease does not require a landlord to hold a security deposit in trust and if there is no state statute generally requiring landlords to do so, the security deposit may not be recoverable by the tenant when the landlord files for bankruptcy. See 10FN Inc. v. Cerberus Business Finance LLC, 21-5996 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2022).

We have previously blogged about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court decision last June that invalidated the 2018 difference in fees between bankruptcy cases filed in Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts.

In the recent judgement of In the matter of SPARC Group Limited (en désastre) [2022] JRC 194 (SPARC Group), the Royal Court of Jersey considered the appropriate test for the making of a disqualification order against a director, with the stark nature of the facts justifying a lengthy term of disqualification.

Background 

The application for a disqualification order was made by the Viscount, in respect of Andrew Jeremy Mills (Mr Mills), who was the sole director of SPARC Group Limited (the Company), a property development business. 

近年来，随着我国商标申请量逐年攀升，商标注册难度不断加大，当然市场上也存在大量“闲置”商标，随之连续三年不使用注册商标的撤销案件日益频发。

《商标法》第四十九条第二款规定：

“注册商标成为其核定使用的商品的通用名称或者没有正当理由连续三年不使用的，任何单位或者个人可以向商标局申请撤销该注册商标。”

一般情况下在撤三申请之前会重点关注商标注册人是否在近三年对注册商标进行真实有效的商业使用，而“正当理由”这一例外情形，需依据商标注册人具体情况而定，难以通过前期互联网查询等方式了解。

何种情况才属于连续三年不使用的“正当理由”呢？

《商标法实施条例》第六十七条规定：

“下列情形属于商标法第四十九条规定的正当理由:（一）不可抗力；（二）政府政策性限制；（三）破产清算；（四）其他不可归责于商标注册人的正当事由。”

最高人民法院2010《关于审理商标授权确权行政案件若干问题的意见》第二十条第三款规定：

“如果商标权人因不可抗力、政策性限制、破产清算等客观事由，未能实际使用注册商标或者停止使用，或者商标权人有真实使用商标的意图，并且有实际使用的必要准备，但因其他客观事由尚未实际使用注册商标的，均可认定有正当理由。”