The Bottom Line

What happens to a trademark license when the brand owner goes bankrupt? This is a question to be addressed by the Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.

Officers and directors work hard to shepherd their company through bankruptcy. But, even after all that hard work, creditors can still turn around and sue them individually for alleged acts prior to the bankruptcy. What kind of thanks is that? A debtor wishing to protect these hard-working officers and directors may seek to include a third party release in the plan.

On Friday, October 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in what could be a landmark decision concerning trademark issues in bankruptcy. In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, the Court will resolve a Circuit Court split and determine whether a debtor-licensor can strip away the rights of its trademark licensees by rejecting its trademark licensing agreements as part of its bankruptcy case.

Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Case No. 17-1657, cert. granted (Oct. 26, 2018).

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case addressing the effect a trademark owner’s bankruptcy may have on a licensee’s right to continue to use a mark licensed before the bankruptcy was filed. The case presents an issue that has divided many courts, and may have far-reaching consequences for both trademark owners and trademark licensees.

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a bill amending the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Code of Civil Procedure. The new law, which takes effect January 1, requires disclosures in any communication by a debt collector attempting to collect a time-barred debt. Because the RFDCPA defines the term "debt collector" to include first-party creditors in addition to third-party creditors, auto dealers and finance companies should pay attention.

Egalet Corporation (OCTQX: EGLT), along with two of its affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-12439). Egalet, based in Wayne, Pennsylvania, is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develop and manufactures pain-relief medications.

The purpose of bankruptcy is twofold: (1) to provide the party filing for bankruptcy—the “debtor”—with a fresh start, and (2) to fairly distribute the debtor’s non-exempt assets to creditors in accordance with the priority scheme set forth in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. This may sound relatively simple, but accomplishing these dual objectives can be difficult. One of the challenges in all bankruptcy cases is determining the scope and extent of assets that constitute “property of the estate” which are available for distribution to creditors.

In the spirit of the season, we’re (re)visited by Doron Kenter, a member of the Weil Bankruptcy Blog’s O.G. Editorial Board (and, as far as we can tell, still holder of the dubious distinction of having published the most posts for us).

Section 108(c) applies to extend a judgment lien pending termination of the automatic stay. State law grants a judgment creditor a lien on all the judgment debtor’s personal property when the creditor obtains from the court and serves on the judgment debtor an order for appearance and examination (ORAP) to discover assets. The lien, which is not publicly recorded, lasts for one year.