Chapter 11 Debtor, Tempnology, LLC (“Tempnology”) is feeling the heat today, May 20, 2019, as the United States Supreme Court held that Mission Product Holdings, Inc., (“Mission”), a licensee of Tempnology’s “Coolcore” products, can continue to use Tempnology’s trademarks to sell and distribute its products in the United States. The Supreme Court’s decision resolved a significant circuit split, at least for trademark licensing agreements, as to whether Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code can shield a debtor-licensor from its licensees continued use of licensed trademarks.

With the May 1 order, the Commission reaffirms its view that it has concurrent jurisdiction over debtors’ efforts to reject their FERC-jurisdictional contracts in bankruptcy. Further developments in judicial proceedings in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits are expected.

In an agricultural lien contest between three creditors of a bankrupt commercial farm, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed the trial court’s award of summary judgment in favor of a bank that provided debtor-in-possession financing, holding that the locale of the farm products determined the applicable lien law and that bank’s lien was superior to the liens of two nurseries that supplied trees and shrubs because the latter were either unperfected or unenforceable.

In 8-1 decision resolving circuit court split, U.S. Supreme Court holds that bankrupt company’s rejection of executory contract containing trademark license constitutes breach of contract, not its rescission or termination, and licensee retains its rights under the license.

The US Supreme Court decided what the International Trademark Association (INTA) called "the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing" when it ruled on May 20, 2019, that bankrupt companies cannot use bankruptcy law to revoke a trademark license.

In its 8-1 decision, the court resolved a circuit split by holding that a debtor's rejection of a trademark license under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to "reject any executory contract" (a contract that neither party has finished performing), amounts only to a breach of the license.

The U.S. Supreme Court held today in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a trademark licensee may retain certain rights under a trademark licensing agreement even if the licensor enters bankruptcy and rejects the licensing agreement at issue. Relying on the language of section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Supreme Court emphasized that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract has the “same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy” and that rejection “cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.”

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.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a lower bankruptcy court’s ruling that a refinanced mortgage was enforceable as to the interests of both husband and wife, where the wife did not execute the note and was not defined as a “borrower” in the body of the mortgage, but nonetheless initialed and signed the mortgage document as a “borrower” in the signature block.

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.