Trademark licensors and licensees, as well as their stakeholders (including lenders), should heed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC n/k/a Old Cold, LLC, No. 17-1657. The Justices resolved a long-standing question arising from the intersection of bankruptcy and trademark law: whether a debtor/licensor’s rejection of a trademark license terminates the licensee’s right to use a trademark after rejection.

Trademark licensors and licensees, as well as their stakeholders (including lenders), should heed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC n/k/a Old Cold, LLC, No. 17-1657. The Justices resolved a long-standing question arising from the intersection of bankruptcy and trademark law: whether a debtor/licensor’s rejection of a trademark license terminates the licensee’s right to use a trademark after rejection.

Last year, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Merit, unanimously ruling that a buyout transaction between private parties did not qualify for “safe harbor” protection under Bankruptcy Code section 546(e), on the basis that a “financial institution” acted as an intermediary in the overarching transaction.

• It is common for the ownership and operation of a hotel to be separated and this should be reflected in a lender's security package.

• In the event of financial distress, a review of the hotel holding and operating structure and security package is essential to identify pre-enforcement and enforcement options available to the lender.

• The practicalities of enforcement need to be considered alongside the legal options, including the position in relation to existing licences and short term funding requirements, as this will inform the strategy for how the a

In a case of first impression, the Fifth Circuit held that a defendant is not required to plead as an affirmative defense under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act that it had complied with Section 1024.41 of the Code of Federal Regulations by responding properly to a borrower’s loss mitigation application. Germain v. US Bank National Association, — F. 3d — (2019 WL 146705, April 3, 2019). It affirmed the dismissal of the borrower’s RESPA claim on a summary judgment motion, based on the following facts.

On March 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dealt another setback to plaintiffs trying to establish Article III standing to assert a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”). In five related FCRA appeals combined in Jaras v. Equifax, Inc., 2019 WL 1373198 (9th Cir. Mar.

On March 18, 2019, Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision enforcing a mortgage lender’s claim for a prepayment premium (a/k/a make-whole or yield maintenance premium) notwithstanding the lender’s prepetition acceleration of the loan due to the debtor’s default.

Imagine this: a contractor undertakes to perform certain works by a specified date, and agrees to pay liquidated damages (LDs) if it does not complete by that date (subject to any entitlement to an extension of time). The contractor, through its own fault, is late and does not complete by the specified date. In fact, the contractor is very late and, in the end, the employer terminates the contract before the works are completed (as it is entitled to do under the contract).

In the In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corporation bankruptcy cases,[1] the court recently issued an opinion narrowing the number of situations in which a fixed

We are all accustomed to seeing change of control as a mandatory prepayment event, if not an event of default, under subscription line facilities. Even the strongest sponsors accept that a lender’s analysis of a transaction is based on the current management of the fund, such that any change in control should trigger at least the right to prepayment and cancellation. While there are often points for negotiation, this premise is almost universal.