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.

• 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.

In the recent decision of Edmonton (City) v Alvarez & Marsal Canada Inc., 2019 ABCA 109, the Alberta Court of Appeal has concluded that fees and costs incurred by a court-appointed receiver should have priority over all claims by secured creditors, including special liens in favour of municipalities for unpaid property taxes. This is an important decision for the insolvency bar and provides some much needed comfort to receivers that their fees and costs will be protected by the court-ordered charge.

The Decision

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).

The Defendant was a dentist who had executed a personal guarantee on July 7, 2011 in favour of the Plaintiff (the "Bank") in order to secure payment of the indebtedness of the Defendant's professional corporation. The Bank made a demand for payment on the guarantee, and subsequently brought an action against the Defendant (the "First Action").The Bank was successful on a motion for summary judgment and judgment was granted against the Defendant.

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

Background

Virginia Hills Oil Corp. was a small publicly traded oil producer with assets in north central Alberta. Some of its assets were held through its subsidiary Dolomite Energy Inc. (collectively the "Debtors"). The Debtors' main secured creditors were the Alberta Treasury Branches and the Bank of Nova Scotia (the "Banks"). The Debtors also owned a pipeline that passed through three municipalities (the "Municipalities").