In May 2019, with its ruling in Mission Products Holding Inc. v. Tempnology, the US Supreme Court resolved a nationwide circuit split regarding what happens to a trademark license when the trademark owner and licensor declares bankruptcy.

On November 12, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed a decision of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts in a case that illustrates fraudulent transfer risk for colleges and universities that receive tuition payments from a student’s insolvent parents.

Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Claims and College Tuition Payments

In an 8–1 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and held that rejection of a trademark license in bankruptcy constitutes a breach of the license agreement, which has the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy. Therefore, a licensor’s rejection of a trademark license agreement does not rescind or terminate the licensee’s rights under the agreement, including the right to continue using the mark. Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Case No. 17-1657 (S. Ct.

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.

On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling in the case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The decision resolves a circuit split, holding that a licensee may retain its right to use licensed trademarks, notwithstanding the debtor-licensor’s rejection of the contract in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court’s decision has potentially far-reaching implications.

In normal circumstances, a director’s primary duty (owed to the company, not the company’s shareholders or the corporate group) is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its shareholders as a whole. When a company enters a period of financial distress (the so-called “zone of insolvency”) there is a shift of emphasis in the duties of the directors: directors must consider the interests of the company’s creditors and, depending on the extent of the financial distress, may need to prioritise such interests over those of its members.

When a company enters a period of financial distress, directors must consider the interests of the company’s creditors and, depending on the extent of the financial distress, may need to prioritise such interests over those of its members. In such distressed situations, the key current heads of liability directors may face (for which they may potentially incur personal liabilities) include wrongful trading, fraudulent trading, misfeasance and breach of duty.

On April 23, 2019, Ropes & Gray, representing a large group of shareholder defendants, won a decision in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that provides potential fraudulent transfer protection for payments made to shareholders in leveraged buyouts, stock redemptions and other securities transactions.

Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Claims and the Securities Safe Harbor

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).