It is hard to deny the growing sense of uncertainty that has developed since 2011 when the Bankruptcy Rules were amended to add Rule 3002.1 which requires, among other things, a notice to be filed itemizing any post-petition fees, expenses or charges incurred in connection with their claim.  With more and more disputes arising between Chapter 13 creditors, debtors and trustees over the reasonableness and entitlement of those fees it is imperative that creditors understand the best practices for recovering the full amount of their fees and how to defend against any unwanted objections.

This week, in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the Supreme Court settled a dispute between the Circuit Courts regarding how trademark licenses are treated when a licensor declares bankruptcy. Under the Bankruptcy Code, debtors may reject executory contracts—or contracts that have not been fully performed—upon declaring bankruptcy. Although the Bankruptcy Code explicitly dictates that when a licensor rejects a patent license, the licensee may continue to use the patent so long as it pays royalties, it contains no such provision for trademark licenses.

In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

HIGHLIGHTS:

The Supreme Court’s Decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology

Many Chapter 11 debtors have reorganization plans that reject contracts in droves and they never look back. Why? Rejection is part of the debtor’s “fresh start”. A debtor “monetizes” its old contracts into prepetition claims, often paying only cents on the dollar in damages. But where does that leave counterparties? If that contract was a trademark license, the licensee might be in the catbird seat.

Trademark licensors and licensees, as well as their stakeholders (including lenders), should heed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC n/k/a Old Cold, LLC, No. 17-1657. The Justices resolved a long-standing question arising from the intersection of bankruptcy and trademark law: whether a debtor/licensor’s rejection of a trademark license terminates the licensee’s right to use a trademark after rejection.

Trademark licensors and licensees, as well as their stakeholders (including lenders), should heed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC n/k/a Old Cold, LLC, No. 17-1657. The Justices resolved a long-standing question arising from the intersection of bankruptcy and trademark law: whether a debtor/licensor’s rejection of a trademark license terminates the licensee’s right to use a trademark after rejection.

In an 8-1decision issued on May 20, the Supreme Court held that rejection of an executory trademark license agreement in a bankruptcy of the licensor is merely a breach, and not a termination or rescission, of the agreement. The licensee retains whatever rights it would have had upon a breach of the agreement prior to bankruptcy and can continue to use the trademarks pursuant to its contractual rights under applicable law. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___, No. 17-1657 (May 20, 2019).

Background

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.

In Part 1, we discussed how, despite widespread usage, termination in the event of bankruptcy clauses (“ipso facto” clauses) are generally unenforceable pursuant to the bankruptcy code. In this second part, we discuss why these clauses are still prevalent in commercial transactions and the exceptions that allow for enforceability in certain situations.

Why Do Ipso Facto Clauses Remain in Most Contracts?

If ipso facto clauses are generally not enforceable, then why do practically all commercial agreements continue to include them? There are several reasons.