The US Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Kagan, reversed a decision of the First Circuit and held that the rejection of a trademark license agreement under Bankruptcy Code Section 365 (11 U.S.C. § 365) constitutes a breach of the license agreement that has the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy. Therefore, the licensor’s rejection of the license agreement does not rescind or terminate the licensee’s rights under the license agreement, including the right to continue using the mark. Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Case No.
Yesterday, in Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology LLC, the Supreme Court held that a trademark licensee may continue using a licensed trademark after its licensor files for bankruptcy and rejects the relevant license agreement. While a debtor-licensor may "reject" a trademark license agreement under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, such rejection is only a breach of the agreement and does not allow the licensor to revoke the licensee's rights.
On March 27, 2019, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia issued an opinion holding that an over-secured creditor could not recover a portion of the creditor's attorney's fees incurred in connection with the borrower's bankruptcy proceeding despite provisions in the loan agreement that provided for recovery of attorney's fees "incurred in connection with the enforcement" of the loan documents.
New York and Delaware courts resolved two coverage issues in favor of directors and officers of real estate investment trust advisory companies in lawsuits against their liability insurers. Both decisions arise out of ongoing coverage disputes related to allegations of fraud and other wrongdoing in connection with accounting irregularities.
The Supreme Court of the United States granted Mission Product Holdings’ petition for certiorari to determine whether a debtor-licensor can terminate the rights of trademark licensees by rejecting its trademark licensing agreements as part of its bankruptcy case. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, Case No. 17-1657 (Supr. Ct. Oct. 26, 2018). The specific question presented is:
The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance claim for a “blocking right” and right of first refusal under a patent transfer agreement, addressing the district court’s proper exclusion of expert testimony on whether the debtor was insolvent at the time of the relevant transfer. In re: Teltronics, Inc., Case No. 16-16140 (11th Cir. Oct. 2, 2018) (Kaplan, J).
A recent federal bankruptcy court decision addresses important principles of fiduciary conduct (and the benefits of a state exculpatory statute) in the context of a financially distressed not-for-profit hospital.
New Decision Affects D&O Liability
A recent federal bankruptcy court decision addresses important principles of fiduciary conduct (and the benefits of a state exculpatory statute) in the context of a financially distressed not-for-profit hospital.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently scrutinized the proper application of the safe harbor found in Section 546(e) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code1 in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting Inc.2 While the Supreme Court's decision narrowed the reach of the safe harbor, it did little to change the landscape for the multi-billion dollar U.S. structured finance industry, including warehouse lending.
On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court in a significant ruling held in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. that transfers of property of a debtor in which financial institutions are mere conduits or intermediaries may be avoidable. The Court ruled that the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code do not protect such transfers from avoidance.