Are Trademark Licenses Protected in Bankruptcy? The Confusion Continues

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut held that while a bankrupt licensor may reject a trademark licensing agreement, the trademark licensee may elect to retain its rights to the debtor’s trademark. The Bankruptcy Court noted that its ruling disagrees with a contrary decision issued by the First Circuit only a few months earlier.

Executory Contracts and the IP Exception

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut held that while a bankrupt licensor may reject a trademark licensing agreement, the trademark licensee may elect to retain its rights to the debtor’s trademark. The Bankruptcy Court noted that its ruling disagrees with a contrary decision issued by the First Circuit only a few months earlier.

Executory Contracts and the IP Exception

A key consideration for investors in securities of bankrupt issuers is the extent to which the securities received upon consummation of a Chapter 11 plan will be freely transferable. While the trading restrictions may not change an investor’s determination to, for instance, participate in a backstop arrangement, or to receive an amount of securities that would result in potential affiliate status, the investor’s compliance and back-office functions will be responsible for monitoring reporting and implementing trades, and the potential slip-ups are many and varied.

As any financial or legal professional will advise, a promise, representation or agreement should be in writing. This sound advice applies equally in the bankruptcy context, as the Supreme Court recently held.[1] When extending credit to an individual who makes a statement about her financial condition—whether it be her overall financial status or as to a specific asset (such as using a tax refund to repay a debt)—the creditor must get that statement in writing.

In a recent opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Court”) ruled that penalties assessed by the state of Michigan against two debtors, stemming from fraud associated with the wrongful receipt of Michigan unemployment benefits, are non-dischargeable in Chapter 13 bankruptcy pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2).1

Background Facts

Your business now faces an adversary complaint filed by the bankruptcy trustee. The complaint has several counts alleging that your business received fraudulent transfers of assets from a debtor in bankruptcy. The complaint alleges two types of fraudulent transfers. The first is actual fraud, which involves a debtor’s intent to delay, hinder, or defraud its creditors. The second is referred to as constructive fraud, which involves a debtor’s transfer of assets made in exchange for inadequate consideration.

Type of Transferee

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a party with a pecuniary interest affected by a bankruptcy court order satisfies the “person aggrieved” requirement for appellate standing even where the party fails to appear and object in the bankruptcy proceeding.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the appeal for lack of standing and remanded the case.

Just last month, the Bankruptcy Cave reported upon a Southern District of Texas case in which a debtor was denied discharge of a debt owed to an old (and likely former!?!) friend from church who had been required to pay off a student loan made to the debtor which the friend had guaranteed. Today we report another case involving friends and family and non-dischargeable student debt from the U.S.

On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, No. 16-1215, 138 S. Ct. 1752, 2018 WL 2465174 (U.S. June 4, 2018),  that an individual debtor's false statement about a single asset, as distinguished from the debtor's overall financial status, can make a debt for money, property, services, or credit obtained on the basis of the statement nondischargeable in the debtor's bankruptcy case, but only if the statement is in writing.

On May 25, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirmed in re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp.1 that a midstream gathering agreement did not create a real covenant that ran with the land,2 and therefore, a debtor may reject the agreement as an “executory contract” under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.3