The United States Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision issued on May 20, 2019, settled a split among the Circuits in holding a debtor’s rejection of a trademark license agreement under Bankruptcy Code Section 365 did not rescind the rights of the trademark licensee under the agreement. In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the Court adopted what is known as the “rejection-as-breach” approach, which holds that post-contract rejection a trademark licensee still retains its rights under applicable state law.

In Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC,1 the Supreme Court, in an 8-to-1 decision, held that bankrupt trademark owners cannot use bankruptcy law to unilaterally revoke a trademark license. The Court summarized the question at issue and held that:

On May 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC (In re Tempnology) ("Tempnology"), 587 U.S. ___, 2019 WL 2166392 (U.S. May 20, 2019), which finally resolved an issue that has created confusion and uncertainty for more than 30 years regarding the consequences flowing from a debtor licensor's rejection of a trademark license in bankruptcy.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc., v. Tempnology, LLC  clarifies that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365(a)  of the Bankruptcy Code is treated as a breach, and not as a rescission, of that license under § 365(g).  The Court held that if a licensee’s right to use the trademark would survive a breach outside of bankruptcy, that same right survives a rejection in bankruptcy.

Should the laws of the United States have effect outside of the United States? For that matter, should the laws of other countries have effect outside of their borders, and inside the United States? These are pretty fundamental questions about what should be the world order. A recent decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, a bankruptcy case with a high likelihood of reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, takes on that issue. It is a case to watch.

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.

Among the many protections afforded creditors under the Bankruptcy Code is the estate’s ability to avoid transfers made before the petition date that benefit certain creditors at the expense of others. These so-called avoidance actions are primarily governed by Sections 544, 547 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, which set forth the requirements for challenging prepetition transfers as preferential or fraudulent.

In hindsight, it seems inevitable that constitutional and other jurisdictional problems would arise when Congress, in enacting the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, created impressive new powers and responsibilities for the bankruptcy courts (along with a considerable degree of independence) but denied them the status of Article III courts under the Constitution (by denying its judges lifetime tenure, as Article III requires). And it didn’t take long for the problems to arise.

In December 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017 (TCJA). Effective as of Jan. 1, 2018, the TCJA is a wide-ranging change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Tax Code) affecting individual, corporate, and international taxation.

Lost amongst the many commentaries are two changes that have a negative impact on business debtors under the Bankruptcy Code: (1) reduction of the corporate tax rates and (2) elimination of the ability to carry back net operating losses.

What happens to the a licensee’s right to use a trademark if the licensor files for bankruptcy?