This article provides an analysis of whether a licensee retains the right to use trademarks following rejection of an intellectual property license.  The analysis centers on Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code as well as a recent 7th Circuit opinion interpreting the applicability of that provision to trademarks.  In short, while there does not appear to be unanimity among the Circuits, there is growing authority for the proposition that the right to use trademarks does not necessarily terminate upon rejection of the license.

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently interpreted an ambiguous subordination agreement, finding the subordinated creditor was entitled to the appointment of a receiver over the mortgaged property.  PNC Bank, National Association v. LA Develop., Inc., --- N.E.2d ---, No. 41A01-107-MF-314, 2012 WL 3156539 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug.

Perfection of security interests in intellectual property can be a trap for the unwary.  In general, secured parties are often confused about where to file in order to perfect a security interest.  This is not surprising as the perfection regime differs depending on the type of intellectual property.  As a starting point, one should determine the general rule for the main classes of intellectual property:  trademarks, patents and copyrights.

In a perfect world, a debtor's bankruptcy would involve timely reporting, good faith filings, and full disclosures.  Unfortunately, some debtors either enter the process under a cloud of suspicion or make decisions during the process that suggest the estate has been compromised by fraudulent activity.  Whether the alleged fraud is a complex bust-out scheme or a simple unreported asset transfer, the debtor may face a serious investigation.  Depending on the extent of the allegations, the investigation could be referred as a criminal matter to federal prosecutors.  As the

In Salyersville Nat’l Bank v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 664 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir.

Since it was decided in June 2011, countless scholars and courts have weighed in on the impact and implications of the Supreme Court’s seminal opinion in Stern v. Marshall.

Officials from Abound Solar Manufacturing told the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight, and Government Spending July 18 that inexpensive solar panel imports from China led the manufacturer to file for bankruptcy July 2 after receiving a Department of Energy loan guarantee. The company had drawn down $70 million of the $400 million loan guarantee.

The Department of Energy announced June 28 that Abound Solar Manufacturing LLC, a Colorado-based manufacturer of thin film solar panels and recipient of a $400 million loan guarantee, plans to stop operations this week, making it the fourth company backed by the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program to file for bankruptcy. The company received a loan guarantee in December 2010 to help fund construction of two commercial-scale plants.

The secured lender industry experienced a collective sigh of relief on May 29 after the Supreme Court ruled in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al. v. Amalgamated Bank that credit bidding remains a viable option to protect collateral in a cramdown bankruptcy plan. Expressly inscribed in Sections 363(k) and 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, credit bidding has long been understood as a fairly uncontroversial right; until recently.

In our May 24 entry on this topic, the Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund (the “Fund”) was battling numerous challenges to its Chapter 11 eligibility. The dispute revolved around whether the Fund, which provides benefits to government workers and retirees, was a “governmental unit” as defined by the Bankruptcy Code. In a decision from the bench on June 1st, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Faris affirmed his May 29th tentative ruling that the Fund is a “governmental unit” and, as such, is ineligible for Chapter 11.