Policyholders with Home Insurance Company policies should be aware that the court in the Liquidation of Home Insurance Company has entered an Order setting the claim amendment deadline.
On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC (“Tempnology”) deciding that rejection of an executory contract by a debtor is only a prepetition breach and not a termination of the contract.
In its recent decision in Tempnology LLC, n/k/a Old Cold, LLC v. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. (In re Tempnology LLC), No. 15-065 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Nov. 18, 2016), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (“the BAP”) rejected the Fourth Circuit’s holding in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir.
The In re Tempnology LLC bankruptcy case in New Hampshire has produced yet another important decision involving trademarks and Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code. This time the decision is from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (“BAP”). Although the BAP’s Section 365(n) discussion is interesting, even more significant is its holding on the impact of rejection of a trademark license.
In various posts, the latest of which was September 2, 2015, Reinsurance Focus has covered developments in the liquidation of The Home Insurance Company.
A decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire is the latest of a handful of cases in the past few years to weigh in on a circuit split as to whether a licensor of trademark rights can fully terminate a licensing agreement as a debtor in bankruptcy.
A decision last month by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire serves as a good reminder that, although helpful, Bankruptcy Code Section 365(n)’s protection for intellectual property licenseesdefinitely has its limits.
Century Indemnity Company (“CIC”) reinsured The Home Insurance Company (“Home”). Due to Home’s liquidation proceedings, which began in 2003, CIC became fully liable for a $13 million settlement of certain environmental claims for which CIC and Home were both primarily liable under the parties’ respective insurance contracts. CIC, a debtor in the Home proceedings, sought a setoff of $8 million against other obligations owed to Home, for Home’s share of the settlement that CIC paid in full. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order permitting the setoff.