On September 18, 2009, many long-awaited amendments to Canada's Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) came into force. One of these new provisions will help protect intellectual property (IP) licensees in the event of the bankruptcy of their licensors.

On 14 December 2009, the same day on which Nakheel, a Dubai World subsidiary, was due to make payment under its 2009 sukuk, the Government of Dubai announced that it had received support from the Government of Abu Dhabi and the UAE Central Bank and would pay the US$4.1 billion due. It also announced that it had secured funding of an additional US$5.9 billion to be used to meet “interest expenses and working capital [of Dubai World] through April 30, 2010 – conditioned on the company being successful in negotiating a standstill”.

Several tort claims were made against T & N Limited (“the Insured”) arising out of its use of asbestos. As a consequence it became unlikely to be able to pay its debts. Administrators were appointed for the purposes of approving a scheme of arrangement under section 425 of the Companies Act 1985.

Several tort claims were made against T & N Limited (“the Insured”) arising out of its use of asbestos. As a consequence it became unlikely to be able to pay its debts. Administrators were appointed for the purposes of approving a scheme of arrangement under section 425 of the Companies Act 1985.

Freakley v Centre Reinsurance International Company & Ors [2006] UKHL 45

This case concerns whether a claim to reimbursement of claims-handling expenses should have priority over other creditors on insolvency of the insured.

In re Goody’s Family Clothing, Inc- F3d – 2010 WL 2671929 (3d Cir June 29, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The concurring opinion in a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals case1 suggests that trademark licensees may be able to retain their rights in bankruptcy cases, even if licensors reject the license agreements. The majority did not consider whether the licensee could retain its rights. Instead, the majority held that the trademark license was not an executory contract; therefore, it could not be rejected under the Bankruptcy Code. The majority opinion applies narrowly to circumstances involving perpetual, exclusive, and royalty-free trademark licenses.

A New York bankruptcy judge held on October 4, 2010, that second lien lenders could object to a debtor’s bid procedures approved by the first lien lenders despite the terms of an intercreditor agreement inIn re Boston Generating, LLC, No. 10-14419 (SCC) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2010).1 The intercreditor agreement provided the first lien lenders with the “exclusive right to…make determinations regarding the…sale” of the collateral. According to the court, however, the agreement did not expressly preclude the second lien lenders from objecting to bid procedures.

Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code provides offers substantial protection for licensees when a licensor files for bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy proceeding, a licensor/executor has the option of either accepting and continuing an intellectual property license agreement, or rejecting the license. If an intellectual property license is rejected, a licensee is afforded beneficial options under the Code. The Bankruptcy Code defines “intellectual property” in Section 101 (35A) as a-

Supreme Court Rules on Importing And Selling Foreign Made Goods