A Big Answer To A Big Question. After dividing the courts for a number of years, we finally have the answer to the big question of whether rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor deprives the licensee of the right to use the trademark. Here’s the question on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v Tempnology, LLC case:
The US Supreme Court decided what the International Trademark Association (INTA) called "the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing" when it ruled on May 20, 2019, that bankrupt companies cannot use bankruptcy law to revoke a trademark license.
In its 8-1 decision, the court resolved a circuit split by holding that a debtor's rejection of a trademark license under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to "reject any executory contract" (a contract that neither party has finished performing), amounts only to a breach of the license.
The Institutional Limited Partner Association (ILPA) has published recommendations for how “GP-led fund restructurings” should be organised. These transactions occur when a fund sponsor (GP/manager) introduces a secondary purchaser to buy assets out of one of its existing funds, typically into a new fund structure where the same GP is the manager. Such transactions are complex and inevitably throw up conflict issues. Investors regularly complain that GPs are short on transparency and slapdash with timelines when trying to do one of these deals.
As discussed in an earlier post called “Moving Up: Bankruptcy Code Dollar Amounts Will Increase On April 1, 2019,” various dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code and related statutory provisions were increased for cases filed on or after today, April 1, 2019.
The Supreme Court held oral argument earlier today in the Mission Products v. Tempnology case, on the issue of the effect of rejection by a licensor of a trademark license on the licensee’s rights.
No. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s original finding, namely that no duty to consider AWA’s creditors had arisen. Whilst AWA’s directors had made provision for the contingent liabilities in question, this did not itself mean AWA was insolvent or close to insolvency. In fact, it was not, and so the duty to consider AWA’s creditors never arose.
Practical implications
Although this decision simply confirms the High Court’s original decision, it emphasises the care and vigilance with which directors of a company need to act when paying dividends.
Court confirms dividends can be transactions at an undervalue
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a dividend paid by a company to its shareholders can constitute a transaction at an undervalue under insolvency law.
What happened?
At the initial hearing, the High Court found the dividend was caught by section 423 and was therefore invalid. Importantly, it said that a dividend could constitute a transaction at an undervalue. This was an important confirmation, and the High Court has since followed this approach (for example, in Dickinson v NAL Realisations (Staffordshire) Ltd).
An official notice from the Judicial Conference of the United States was just published announcing that certain dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code will be increased about 6.2% this time for new cases filed on or after April 1, 2019.
The Big Question. What is the effect of rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor? Over the past few years, this blog has followed the Tempnology case out of New Hampshire raising just that issue.