In a recent decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the rejection by a licensor of a trademark license stripped the licensee of its right to use the trademark post-rejection, reversing a decision by the intermediate bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) and reinstating the bankruptcy court’s original judgment. In re Tempnology, LLC, 2018 WL 387621 (1st Cir. Jan. 12, 2018), reversing in part 559 B.R. 809 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2016). The First Circuit did, however, affirm that the rejection stripped the licensee's exclusive product distribution rights.

The filing of a bankruptcy case imposes an “automatic stay” that protects debtors from creditors attempting to pursue litigation against them. Creditors may in turn ask the bankruptcy court to lift the stay. But if that request is denied, must a creditor wait for months or years until the entire bankruptcy case is over before it can finally appeal the bankruptcy court’s denial of its request to lift the stay?

For almost 30 years, owners and licensees of intellectual property had no firm answer to this important question: if the owner of a trademark rejects a license agreement in bankruptcy, does the licensee then lose its right to use the mark? The United States Supreme Court has now settled that question in favor of licensees in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC (U.S. May 20, 2019), by ruling that the owner may not, by rejecting the license, extinguish the licensee's right to use the licensed mark.

Bankruptcy debtors receive a “fresh start” with a discharge of debts, except for certain debts arising from fraud. But in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 2018 WL 1054879 (Feb. 27, 2018) has made it easier for bankruptcy trustees to claw back money received as part of certain transactions, while emphasizing that bankruptcy law still protects the financial institutions that facilitate those transactions. The transfers at issue in Merit Management were not a debtor’s ordinary loan payments to a lender.

On May 15, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5-3) in favor of the debt collection industry, holding that the filing of a proof of claim against a chapter 13 debtor on a debt that cannot be enforced under state law because the statute of limitations on it has expired does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), because filing such a proof of claim is not a “false, deceptive, or misleading representation” or an “unfair or unconscionable” means for collecting a debt, as those terms are used in FDCPA.

Overturning prior pro-debtor precedent, a federal appeals court recently emphasized that secured lenders are entitled to the benefit of their bargains with defaulting borrowers, by making it easier for lenders to collect default-rate interest from a Chapter 11 debtor under a plan of reorganization. Bankruptcy law has long allowed debtors to pay arrearages under a Chapter 11 plan and thereby reinstate the pre-default terms of their loans.

Federal bankruptcy law confers on trustees the power, in some circumstances, to “avoid”––that is, claw back––from creditors money transferred to those creditors pre-bankruptcy to pay the debtor’s obligations. However, if such a transfer was “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a financial institution, it may be protected from avoidance under Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e). The transfers at issue here are not ordinary loan payments to lenders by debtors, but, rather, transfers between third parties that make use of banks or other financial institutions.

An individual files a bankruptcy case to have his debts forgiven, or “discharged.” Where that individual is a principal shareholder or officer of a corporate borrower who has guaranteed payment of his company’s loans, those debts can be substantial. An individual guarantor in that dire situation may try to hide assets – his own or those of his company – and then file a bankruptcy case, in an effort to defeat a lender’s right to be repaid.

It is no surprise that there are risks inherent in doing business with a debtor in bankruptcy, including, of course, the risk that the debtor may not have the money to pay for goods sold to it on credit. Businesses can manage those risks by, for example, shortening trade credit terms, obtaining the debtor’s agreement to pay on delivery or in advance for product, or obtaining a deposit or letter of credit as security. But, once a debtor has paid for goods or services it actually received, most vendors would probably assume that the transaction cannot be challenged.