With the continuing growth in companies trading in an online environment, it is increasingly common for liquidations to deal with creditors in numerous coutries around the world. It is also becoming more and more common for liquidators to deal with creditors who only ever traded with a company in an online manner.
Contact: Andrew R. Turner; Conner & Winters, LLP (Oklahoma, USA)
Critical Vendors & 503(b)(9) Claimants Receive a Nice Christmas Present from the Third Circuit!
Addressing an issue that we have argued in preference litigation many times for clients, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit gave creditors a nice Christmas present on December 24, 2013, when it decided—conclusively—that post-petition payments on pre-petition debt do not reduce the amount of a creditor's "subsequent new value" defense.
Contact: Clarkslegal (Reading, England)
On 16 March 2013 the new Regulations came into force, introducing new rules relating to payment periods, and the dates from which statutory interest runs on commercial debts by amending the Late Payments of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (Act).
The Regulations are designed to benefit SMEs by combating the problems caused by late or unpaid invoices which can include financial difficulties, loss of jobs and, in extreme cases, insolvency. By providing a more supplier-friendly approach to payment, their aim is to tackle the EU-wide culture of late payments in commercial transactions.
A New York state court recently denied a motion to dismiss an action brought by a reorganized debtor against the former chair of the official committee of unsecured creditors in the debtor's chapter 11 case.1 The decision is noteworthy for its holding that the reorganized debtor had standing to commence an action against the former committee member even though the claim was not expressly listed as an asset of the estate in the debtor's chapter 11 disclosure statement.
Contact: Mary D. Lane; Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP (Los Angeles, California, USA)
Fashion industry licensees invest substantial sums in reliance on their license rights. Bankrupt licensors have been able to convince courts they can “reject” licenses and, when so doing, thereby cause licensees’ trademark rights to vaporize. Here we discuss why and what a licensee can do.