On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling of key significance for trademark licensing and for acquisitions, investments, financings and other transactions in which trademark licenses are a key value driver. In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC,[1] the Court held, 8-1, that where the licensor of a trademark rejects a trademark license in bankruptcy, the rejection does not deprive the licensee of its rights to use the licensed trademark(s).

The Supreme Court’s decision today in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC resolved longstanding uncertainty at the intersection of trademark and bankruptcy law. In particular, the Court determined whether the rejection of a trademark license in a bankruptcy case deprives the trademark licensee of its rights under the license for which it had likely paid a lot of money.

Last year, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Merit, unanimously ruling that a buyout transaction between private parties did not qualify for “safe harbor” protection under Bankruptcy Code section 546(e), on the basis that a “financial institution” acted as an intermediary in the overarching transaction.

On May 20, 2019, United States Supreme Court settled a circuit split, deciding that a bankrupt company’s decision to reject an existing contract does not revoke a trademark licensee’s right to continue using the licensed mark.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court finally answered the question of whether a trademark licensee is protected when the trademark owner/licensor files a bankruptcy petition and rejects the trademark license in accordance with section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. To cut to the chase, trademark licensees won.

On Monday, May 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision holding that a bankrupt company’s decision to reject an existing license of its trademarks does not terminate a licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademarks.

In a recent post, we discussed the ongoing personal bankruptcy case In Re Adair, in which a a United States Trustee is seeking to have the court dismiss a Chapter 13 plan of an individual that is employed by a “non-plant-touching” ancillary marijuana business.

In an earlier update, we told you about an appeal pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that would decide whether a landlord receiving rent from someone involved in the state-legal cannabis industry could ever confirm a plan of reorganization under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Creditors’ recoveries often hinge on claw-back lawsuits that trustees bring under bankruptcy law and non-bankruptcy law.[1] Trustees can file claims based on non-bankruptcy law because Bankruptcy Code section 544(b) allows them to assert claims that creditors have standing to file outside of bankruptcy.

We previously provided you with some of the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy’s recommendations to improve the consumer bankruptcy system. As the commission noted, changes in bankruptcy law occur slowly. The last major amendments to the Bankruptcy Code were in 2005, and the last major amendments to the Bankruptcy Rules were in 2011.