Introduction

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, applying California law, has concluded that it should exercise jurisdiction under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act to determine the availability of coverage for a written demand and has held that the related coverage action should not be stayed in favor of potential future underlying litigation between the Federal Deposition Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the insureds because the outcome of the coverage litigation would not be dependent on resolution of disputed facts in such a future action.  Progressiv

Recent bankruptcy appellate rulings have addressed the issue of what rights a trademark licensee has after a debtor-licensor rejects its trademark license in bankruptcy.

In light of the current uncertainty surrounding the rights of trademark licensees when a debtor-licensor seeks to reject the underlying license agreements in bankruptcy, licensees may wish to consider strategies to protect their rights.

In re Exide Technologies5

In 1991, Exide Technologies sold substantially all of its industrial battery business to EnerSys Delaware, Inc. (then known as Yuasa Battery (America), Inc.).

Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC20 In the Sunbeam Products case, the Seventh Circuit held that a trademark licensee could continue to use a trademark after the license was rejected by the debtorlicensor, even though the protections of section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code do not extend to licensees of trademarks.

The German Insolvency Code requires the management of German limited liability companies (GmbH), stock corporations (AG) and other entities without personal liability to file for the commencement of insolvency proceedings no later than three weeks after the entity has become illiquid (zahlungsunfähig) or overindebted (überschuldet).  

New insolvency proceedings called “accelerated financial safeguard” (sauvegarde financière accélérée) were introduced into French law two years ago¹.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, applying Texas law, has held that a settlement agreement resolving coverage litigation released the insurer’s obligation for defense costs for certain claims tendered for coverage under a subsequent policy.  Nat’l Heritage Found., Inc. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 5331570 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2012).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska has held that an insurer may make settlement payments for claims against a debtor’s directors and officers where any claims of the debtor are subordinate to those of the directors and officers under the terms of the policy.  The court stated that under these circumstances “the issue of whether the policies are property of the bankruptcy estate is irrelevant.”  In re TierOne Corp., 2012 WL 4513554 (Bankr. D. Neb. Oct. 2, 2012).