The Australian government has taken swift action to enact new legislation that significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing developments related to COVID-19

A number of recent extensions and changes to temporary measures have been announced that impact insolvency practice and procedure, what are they?

The Australian government has taken swift action to enact new legislation that significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing developments related to COVID-19.

The landscape relating to winding-up petitions has changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Hundreds of petitions have been adjourned already, and the new Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction has now adjourned all hearings due to take place before 21 April across the country. It also sets out new procedures and timings for the listing and re-listing of petitions, with many hearings in London and the regions moving to hearings by video-conference for the foreseeable future.

Courts struggled last year to find a balance between state-licensed cannabis activity and the federal right to seek bankruptcy protection under the Bankruptcy Code. During 2019, we had the first circuit-level opinion in the bankruptcy/cannabis space that appeared to open the door to bankruptcy courts, albeit slightly. We also had lower court opinions slamming that door shut.

Below, we look at a few of the most important decisions issued throughout 2019 and analyze the current state of the law.

The Ninth Circuit's Garvin Decision

On May 17, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York announced that the Official Committee of Consumer Creditors (the “Consumer Committee”) appointed in the In re Ditech Holding Corp. bankruptcy case would not be disbanded. Ditech, supported by the ad hoc group of term loan lenders (the “Ad Hoc Group”), had filed a motion requesting that the Consumer Committee be disbanded or alternatively have a limited scope and budget. After receiving objections from the U.S.

Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a debtor with the power to sell its assets during the bankruptcy case free and clear of all interests. This permits the debtor to maximize the value of its assets and hence the recovery for creditors. But that is not always the end of the story. In Trinity 83 Development, LLC v.

The Bankruptcy Code gives special protections to licensees of intellectual property when a debtor, as licensor, seeks to reject the license. However, the Bankruptcy Code does not include trademarks in its definition of “intellectual property.” So, are licensees of trademarks given any protection when debtors reject trademark licenses? If the Supreme Court grants a recent petition for writ of certiorari, we may get an answer.

Certain licensees of intellectual property are expressly given expanded rights when their licensors file bankruptcy. But what about trademark licensees? Trademarks are not among the defined categories of “intellectual property” for bankruptcy purposes. Nonetheless, are trademark licensees otherwise protected in a licensor bankruptcy? Unfortunately for these licensees, a recent circuit court decision put the brakes on attempts to expand protection to licensees of trademarks.

In the context of German restructuring, bridge loans (Überbrückungskredite) are loans that are granted to financially distressed companies until a restructuring plan is formulated in order to avoid the company’s insolvency. In most cases, such loans are granted for a limited timeframe. After the restructuring plan has been finalized, renegotiations are usually required, in particular between the company, the lender and the company’s other creditors.