Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, No. 17-1657

Today, the Supreme Court held in an 8-1 decision that when a debtor, acting under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, rejects a contract licensing its trademarks, the contract is not rescinded and the debtor thus cannot revoke the trademark license.

This week’s TGIF considers Britax Childcare Pty Ltd, in the matter of Infa Products Pty Ltd v Infa Products Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2016] FCA 848 which considers setting aside a DOCA and the administrator’s casting vote.

FACTS OF THIS CASE

After complex litigation with Britax, Infa Products lost the case and as a direct consequence, appointed administrators.

This week’s TGIF considers the most recent decision in a line of cases which hold that the provisions of the Code of Banking Practice may be incorporated into loan agreements, as well as guarantees given by individuals.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Currey in which the Court looks at whether a breach of clause 25.1 of the Code of Banking Practice renders a guarantee void or voidable.

BACKGROUND

A bank lent money to a family company, which was secured by personal guarantees provided by the applicants. 

In the case of In re: Exide Technologies, decided on June 1, 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed two lower court decisions and held that a 1991 agreement between Exide Technologies and EnerSys Delaware Inc., which included a license to EnerSys for use of the “EXIDE” trademark, is not an executory contract that can be rejected by Exide in bankruptcy proceedings.