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.

While the winding up of a company is a last resort in the context of shareholder oppression, the discretion to order a winding up will be exercised by the Courts if the circumstances dictate that it is the most appropriate remedy, such as where it will provide finality and certainty for the shareholders without undermining the value of the company’s projects to a potential purchaser on winding up.

ASIC’s new administrative powers to wind up companies strengthens the remedial measures that can be taken against business operators attempting to avoid liabilities by abandoning companies and should help employees access their entitlements.

The Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth) (Act) will commence on 1 July 2012. 

If you are one of the lucky product manufacturers who weathered the recent economic downturn well and are looking to buy assets from those who did not survive…beware!

The Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 (Cth) was introduced into Federal parliament on 15 February 2012.

The Bill proposes to amend theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth) and contains 2 key sets of measures:

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio recently held that under Ohio law, the homestead exemption set forth in Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2329.66 applies to contiguous parcels of land only if those parcels are used for a single purpose as the debtor’s homestead.  In re Whitney, 459 B.R. 72 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2011).