Fulltext Search
Trademark Licensee May Continue Using Trademark Following Debtor’s Rejection of License Agreement, US Supreme Court Rules

Yesterday, in an 8-1 decision, the US Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Trademarks, Mayer Brown
Upcoming action with respect to the Orderly Liquidation Authority under the Dodd-Frank Act

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has announced that the agenda for its board meeting next Tuesday, January 18, 2011, will include discussion regarding a “Final Rule Implementing Certain Orderly Liquidation Authority Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.”

USA, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Mayer Brown, Consumer protection, Collateral (finance), Fraud, Board of directors, Personal property, Federal Reserve Board, Liquidation, Depository institution, Bank holding company, Lehman Brothers cases, Secured loan, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (USA), Lehman Brothers, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 2010 (USA), Federal Deposit Insurance Act 1950 (USA), US Secretary of the Treasury
Protecting trademark licensee’s right to continued use of trademark when licensor declares bankruptcy

In the case of In re: Exide Technologies, decided on June 1, 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed two lower court decisions and held that a 1991 agreement between Exide Technologies and EnerSys Delaware Inc., which included a license to EnerSys for use of the “EXIDE” trademark, is not an executory contract that can be rejected by Exide in bankruptcy proceedings.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Trademarks, Mayer Brown, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Breach of contract, Debtor in possession, US Code, United States bankruptcy court, Third Circuit
Purpose statements in engagement letters could prove costly if not drafted appropriately

A recent decision by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the terms of an engagement letter demonstrates the need to clearly articulate the intended purpose and scope of an engagement. As the case described below demonstrates, if there is any ambiguity with regard to whether or not a fee must be paid and/or when an engagement is terminated, the resolution of such ambiguity may depend upon the description of the engagement’s purpose.

USA, New York, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Mayer Brown, Bankruptcy, Debt, Investment banking, Limited partnership, Credit Suisse, United States bankruptcy court