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.
Good evening.
Below are summaries of the civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario this week.
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.
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.
There were six substantive civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal this week. There were many criminal decisions released.
In Wall v. Shaw, the Court determined that there is no limitation period to objecting to accounts in an application to pass accounts in an estates matter. A notice of objection is not a “proceeding” within the meaning of the Limitations Act, 2002.
Following are the summaries for the civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal this week.
There were two wrongful dismissal cases this week. One was brought by a physician against Sick Kids Hospital. The Court found against the Hospital and allowed the appeal, remitting the matter back to the Superior Court for a determination of the damages. The second involved the breach of fiduciary duty of a senior officer of a public company who was found to have been self-dealing. The Court confirmed that the breach of fiduciary duty constituted just cause for termination.
Over the last twenty years, courts have increasingly insulated transactions from avoidance as fraudulent transfers by invoking the so-called “settlement payment” defense codified in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. The safe harbor has been interpreted in the Second and Third Circuits and elsewhere as precluding debtors, trustees and creditors committees from clawing back otherwise objectionable pre-bankruptcy transfers solely because the money at issue flowed through a bank or other financial institution.