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.
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.
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.
Last week, the trustee for Fyre Festival LLC’s bankruptcy estate received court authorization to serve subpoenas on 24 individuals and companies connected to the failed music festival, including agencies representing the social media influencers who were instrumental in promoting the event. Payments that these influencers received connected to the festival are now subject to scrutiny as the bankruptcy trustee pieces together the defunct company’s finances.
On January 17, 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion holding that a creditor whose rights have been affected by operation of the Bankruptcy Code may nevertheless be “unimpaired” under a chapter 11 plan of reorganization.
Almost every year amendments are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The amendments address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. The rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and technically subject to Congressional disapproval.
On June 27, 2018, the Second Circuit denied Nordheim Eagle Ford Gathering, LLC’s petition for a panel rehearing and request that the court certify issues of Texas property law to the Texas Supreme Court. The denial leaves in place the Second Circuit’s May Summary Order affirming the widely publicized decisions of the bankruptcy and district courts below which concluded that the midstream contracts could be rejected because they did not create covenants running with the land under Texas law.
Summary of Key Takeaways
What does it take to represent a private equity client entangled in a complex restructuring involving an important investment in a portfolio company?
Ask David Meyer, the Vinson & Elkins New York-based restructuring partner who led the V&E team representing Riverstone Holdings in the restructuring of Gulf of Mexico oil producer Fieldwood Energy.
In many ways, the case serves as a template for navigating amid a set of highly challenging circumstances.