As we previously reported in Royalty Rights as Unsecured Claims: The Relevance of Mallinckrodt to M&A, Revenue or Royalty Interest Financings, and Other Transactions Involving Future Payment Streams, a decision arising out of the Mallinckrodt plc bankruptcy cases

The challenging commodity price environment will likely bring renewed focus on the rights and obligations that will be impacted if insolvency overtakes exploration and production companies. The British Columbia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Re: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. is a case in point. The case dealt squarely with the question of whether a mineral royalty “runs with the land” – a question that takes on significantly greater importance in the insolvency context.

In his decision in Global Royalties Limited v. Brook, Chief Justice Strathy of the Ontario Court of Appeal explained that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) does not provide a bankrupt with a right to appeal an order lifting a stay of proceedings against him. Despite there being a multi-party bankruptcy, he rejected the submission that “the order or decision is likely to affect other cases of a similar nature in the bankruptcy proceedings”.

Amendments to the rules of deductibility of interest expenses

Further restrictions to deductibility of interest expenses incurred in relation to a share purchase¹

At long last, amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and theCompanies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) have come into force, providing licensees of intellectual property (IP) with some additional level of protection.

Amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) have recently come into force that purportedly protect licensees of intellectual property (IP) if their licensors become insolvent or bankrupt. There are, however, a number of uncertainties surrounding the scope of protection afforded by these amendments. Until these uncertainties are resolved, licensees may wish to consider augmenting their statutory rights by contractual and other legal mechanisms. A Bankruptcy Remote Entity (BRE) is one potential mechanism.

In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Court rejected a bankrupt music composer’s argument that a security interest the composer had granted in royalty based distributions should be ineffective following his bankruptcy.

Re Friedman (2008), 49 C.B.R. (5th) 131 (Ont. S.C.J. in bankruptcy)

Mr. Friedman assigned his rights to royalties he would receive from SOCAN, the Canadian copyright collective that administers royalties for tis members, to his music publisher, to secure loan advances to him from the publisher.

In order to receive royalties, a trademark owner may license out its trademark rights to another party. To license trademark rights, a trademark license agreement must be made in writing and registered at the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), in accordance with Section 68 of the Thai Trademark Act. If a trademark license agreement is not registered, it will be void, according to Section 152 of the Civil and Commercial Code and the support of various Supreme Court judgments (Decisions 7770/2547, 6436/2543, and 6190/2550).

There is something positively Dickensian when looking at the anti-deprivation rule (the "rule") and images come up of scribes working in dark and dismal rooms scratching their quills by dim candle light. Indeed, the rule dates back to the nineteenth century and many lawyers would be hard-pressed to explain it even if they are able to grasp the contradictions and fine distinctions thrown up by the old cases. In essence, the rule provides that a contractual provision is void if it provides for the transfer of an asset from the owner to a third party upon the insolvency of the owner.