The Supreme Court Has Spoken: Victory for Trademark Licensees

Earlier today, the Supreme Court finally answered the question of whether a trademark licensee is protected when the trademark owner/licensor files a bankruptcy petition and rejects the trademark license in accordance with section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.  To cut to the chase, trademark licensees won.

Continue Reading

Back to the future? The return of Crown preference

The proposal to reinstate Crown preference in insolvency has met resistance from all angles; the insolvency profession, turnaround experts, accountants, lawyers and funders. But despite HMRC’s bold statement in its consultation paper that the re-introduction of Crown preference will have little impact on funders, it is clear following a discussion with lenders that it may well have a far wider impact on existing and new business, business rescue and the economy in general than HMRC believes.

The intention to use Crown preference as a means to recover unpaid taxes for the benefit of the public purse fails on many levels. In fact it is likely to result in a far bigger dent to the Treasury’s pocket through loss of tax elsewhere.

The Government issued a consultation on the proposal in February this year (a copy of which can be accessed here) and comments on the paper are invited by 27 May 2019.

Squire Patton Boggs and R3 hosted a discussion group with representatives from across the restructuring and lending community and other key stakeholder groups. With the Government having largely dismissed the impact of the proposals on lenders, the discussion produced lively and interesting debate. Continue Reading

HMRC, preferential treatment and insolvency – uncertain times for funders

This morning Squire Patton Boggs in conjunction with R3 hosted representatives from across the business community to discuss the proposed return of Crown preference in insolvency.

Following the Government announcing in last Autumn’s Budget that HMRC’s preferential status will be restored in part in April 2020, Squire Patton Boggs together with R3 and representatives from creditor bodies, insolvency and restructuring professionals, banks, the funding community, government, and business representative bodies aired their views about the consultation which concludes at the end of this month.  The overwhelming conclusion was that the proposal creates significant uncertainty for funders impacting on existing lending, new business and the UK economy.

We will publish details highlighting the key areas of concern in the coming days.

For further reading please click here to read our previous blog.

Can directors file an out of hours administration appointment?

With the introduction of electronic filing which allows parties to file documents at court 24/7 we consider the recent case of Wright v HMV Ecommerce Limited (2019) in which the court was asked to confirm whether administrators were validly appointed following the directors filing a notice of appointment after the court office was closed.

Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit Gives A Partial Green Light to Cannabis Company Bankruptcies

Earlier today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its long-awaited ruling in the Garvin v. Cook Investments, NW, SPNYW case This opinion is certain to be of great interest to both companies operating in the cannabis space and those attorneys representing them.

In Garvin, the US Trustee appealed confirmation of a plan of reorganization under which one of the debtors leased property to a marijuana grower licensed under Washington law. The US Trustee argued that the plan should not have been confirmed because it was proposed by means forbidden by law in violation of section 1129(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code since the lease to the grower violated federal drug law, i.e., the Controlled Substances Act.

The Ninth Circuit rejected the US Trustee’s argument, holding that section 1129(a)(3) forbids confirmation of a plan that is proposed in an unlawful manner, but does not forbid confirmation of a plan that has substantive provisions that depend on illegality. In other words, section 1129(a)(3) requires the court only to look at the proposal of a plan and not the terms of the plan. Because there was nothing in the proposal of the plan at issue that was unlawful, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the orders of the District Court and Bankruptcy Court confirming the plan.

Nonetheless, the Court’s ruling is not a complete victory for the cannabis industry. Courts may still consider whether cannabis companies are engaged in “gross mismanagement” under section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code by virtue of their cannabis-related work. In this case, the US Trustee had waived its argument under section 1112(b). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit made clear that confirmation of a plan does not insulate a debtor from prosecution for criminal activity, even if that criminal activity is part of the plan itself. Thus, while the Garvin opinion provides some comfort to cannabis companies and their insolvency counsel, it does not cure the tension that exists between state law legalizing cannabis and the Controlled Substances Act.

Attorneys Beware: Federal Court Reinstates Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Law Firm

Attorneys who advise a distressed company usually work very closely with members of the board of directors.  A recent opinion from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas provides a cautionary reminder to such attorneys not to lose sight of the fact that, notwithstanding that the company acts through its board, the attorneys’ duties are to the company and not to the individual board members.  And, losing focus on the source of the attorneys’ duties may result in exposure to significant liability.

Continue Reading

Relief from forfeiture – in the balance

The demise of high street retail and the insolvency of household names, including Woolworths, BHS, and more recently Debenhams and Monsoon has been a real headache for property owners.

The moratorium created by administration ties the hands of landlords, preventing them from forfeiting leases without first having obtained the consent of the administrator or the leave of the court.

When a landlord (or indeed any creditor) comes to court asking the court to exercise its discretion and dis-apply the moratorium, the court has to undertake an exercise of balancing the impact upon both parties weighing up the rights and property interests of the landlord on the one hand and the interests of creditors on the other.

If a tenant enters voluntary liquidation, a landlord can forfeit the lease without permission of the Court.  But if the lease is a valuable asset an insolvency practitioner can apply to Court for relief from forfeiture to enable that asset to be sold.

A similar balancing exercise is required to ascertain whether the property should be returned to the landlord and the lease forfeit or whether the lease should remain in existence to enable the tenant to remain in occupation or, as in the case of SHB Realisations Limited v Cribbs Mall Nominee (1) Ltd [2003] WLUK 588 to enable the lease to be assigned and monies paid into the insolvent estate.

In SHB, HHJ Ralton sitting in the Bristol County Court granted conditional relief from forfeiture to the insolvent tenant of a retail unit.  It was unusual order because the tenant was undeniably in breach of a covenant in its 125 year lease to keep the premises open.   In such a scenario the landlord might reasonable expect the Court to allow the lease to be forfeit. Especially, as in this case, the tenant acknowledged that it was in breach of covenant and that the breach would not be remedied.

Whilst the Judge granted relief, it was subject to a condition that relief only be granted for 3 months to allow the tenant to complete an assignment of the lease and if not completed during that period the lease would be forfeit.

Continue Reading

The Small Business Reorganization Act Reintroduced: A Way Forward for Small Business Reorganization?

Last month, Congress reintroduced the Small Business Reorganization Act (“SBRA”), under which a new subchapter V would be added to chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.  This new subchapter would provide small businesses with aggregate liabilities that do not exceed $2,566,050 with an opportunity to resolve outstanding liabilities through a streamlined and cost‑effective chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.  The SBRA also offers small business owners the opportunity to preserve their ownership interest in the company, unlike state and federal receiverships or assignments for the benefit of creditors which typically result in the company’s liquidation.  Under the SBRA, with proper planning and execution, a small business can successfully emerge from bankruptcy within several months with a court-approved plan of reorganization.  In short, the immense benefits offered to businesses that file chapter 11 bankruptcies will soon no longer be reserved for only large, well-known companies.

New Chapter 11 Opportunity for Small Businesses

Established companies that find themselves financially or operationally distressed may decide to file a voluntary petition in a United States bankruptcy court to initiate a chapter 11 proceeding.  During the bankruptcy case, the company may institute a number of strategies to, among other things, right-size its balance sheet, reduce its outstanding liabilities, renegotiate its funded debt, improve certain lease and contract terms, and auction off all or a portion of its assets, all while its creditors are barred from initiating or continuing any actions against the company to try to collect their debts.  Many chapter 11 bankruptcy cases culminate with the company confirming a plan of reorganization, which allows the company to exit bankruptcy on stronger footing.  To pay for such a substantial undertaking, at the beginning of the case the company will normally obtain debtor-in-possession financing that includes sufficient funds to pay the company’s bankruptcy professionals.

Continue Reading

How do you “undo” a business in the UK? A guide to UK practice

In a series of articles prepared for our “Talk to the International Experts” program we take a look at “Undoing Business in the UK” highlighting the options available to corporates wishing to restructure, wind up or close their UK business.

Click here to read our guide.

Careful Consideration Can Pay Dividends

DividendsFollowing our 2016 article, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends are liable to challenge as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

The case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. & Others [2019] EWCA Civ 112 should serve as a warning to directors to consider fully the reasoning behind the declaration of dividends to avoid committing an offence.

Continue Reading

LexBlog