Two recent cases from New Zealand demonstrate how an equitable lien can arise in insolvency to elevate the interest of unsecured purchasers of goods to secured status.
Key takeouts
【東京地判令和5年3月27日(令和4年(ワ)18610号 商標権に基づく差止請求権不存在確認請求事件)】
【キーワード】
商標権、商標権侵害、実質的違法性、並行輸入、不存在確認請求、破産管財人
【事案の概要】
オンキヨーホームエンターテイメント株式会社(以下、「破産会社」又は「オンキヨー」という。)の破産管財人(以下、「本破産管財人」という場合がある。)が、パイオニア株式会(以下、「被告」という場合がある。)が保有する商標権が付され、香港にある倉庫に保有しているスピーカー等の在庫品(以下、「本件在庫商品」という。)を処分しようと、パイオニアに対し、商標権に基づく差止請求権不存在確認請求訴訟を提起した事案である。 結論としては、本破産管財人が敗訴した。このため、本破産管財人は本件在庫商品を処分(販売)することができず、破産財団の増殖を図ることができなかったと言える。
(※判旨及び本破産管財人のウェブサイトに基づき作成)
In a recent opinion, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed and applied its holding from OGA Charters. In doing so, it blocked (via a bankruptcy adversary proceeding) one set of plaintiffs from keeping an insured’s entire policy limit, which the insurer paid as per Texas’ “first come first served” approach to time-limited policy limits demands.
Celsius’ retail borrowers finally have an answer on who owns the cryptocurrency they deposited into Celsius in exchange for a loan from Celsius – spoiler alert: on November 13, 2023 the bankruptcy court held that Celsius’ terms of service “clearly and unambiguously” gave Celsius ownership of retail borrowers’ cryptocurrency. The bankruptcy court’s decision follows its January 2023 decision which similarly held that the cryptocurrency of Celsius’ “Earn” customers also belonged to Celsius because the terms of service similarly unambiguously granted Celsius title ownership.
On November 3, 2023, the Court in the Chapter 9 bankruptcy case of the City of Chester, Pennsylvania issued its ruling in an adversary proceeding challenging the perfection of the liens securing certain revenue bonds issued by the City.1 Confirming the municipal bond market’s longstanding understanding, the Court concluded that the liens on revenues were prope
Introduction
A recent Commercial Court decision has raised an intriguing question of private international law: can a foreign judgment be enforced in England and Wales if it is not enforceable in the country where it was given?
Rainbow Papers: The Judgment
In State Tax Officer (1) v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1162 ("Rainbow Papers"), the Supreme Court dealt with the question as to whether the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ("IBC") (specifically Section 53) overrides Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("GVAT Act").
Section 48 of the GVAT Act provides as follows.
Section 48. Tax to be first charge on property:
In a recent decision in the case of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. v. HDFC Bank Ltd. and Another, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has held that the rents receivable by a borrower which was assigned to a lender of a lease rental discounting facility would not be treated as an asset of the borrower, and thus fall outside the purview of the asset and security freeze order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”).
Brief Facts
In a recent decision that will add some welcomed clarity to the imposition of Part A1 moratoriums over companies which have been presented with a winding-up petition, the High Court has reflected on the requirements of section A4 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”) and confirmed the test that must be satisfied in order for it to make such an order.
Introduction
In a recent case, the early restructuring was proven as a useful tool for practitioners in circumstances where there is value in moving quickly to affect the restructure prior to the first meeting of creditors.
Case Analysis: Re Richstone Plumbing Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2023] VSC 112
Facts
Richstone Group was a large plumbing contractor, who, due to matters including the economic conditions of the construction industry, earlier this year sought to implement a restructure to continue trading.