Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Case No. 17-1657, cert. granted (Oct. 26, 2018).

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case addressing the effect a trademark owner’s bankruptcy may have on a licensee’s right to continue to use a mark licensed before the bankruptcy was filed. The case presents an issue that has divided many courts, and may have far-reaching consequences for both trademark owners and trademark licensees.

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a bill amending the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Code of Civil Procedure. The new law, which takes effect January 1, requires disclosures in any communication by a debt collector attempting to collect a time-barred debt. Because the RFDCPA defines the term "debt collector" to include first-party creditors in addition to third-party creditors, auto dealers and finance companies should pay attention.

Egalet Corporation (OCTQX: EGLT), along with two of its affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-12439). Egalet, based in Wayne, Pennsylvania, is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develop and manufactures pain-relief medications.

The purpose of bankruptcy is twofold: (1) to provide the party filing for bankruptcy—the “debtor”—with a fresh start, and (2) to fairly distribute the debtor’s non-exempt assets to creditors in accordance with the priority scheme set forth in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. This may sound relatively simple, but accomplishing these dual objectives can be difficult. One of the challenges in all bankruptcy cases is determining the scope and extent of assets that constitute “property of the estate” which are available for distribution to creditors.

In the spirit of the season, we’re (re)visited by Doron Kenter, a member of the Weil Bankruptcy Blog’s O.G. Editorial Board (and, as far as we can tell, still holder of the dubious distinction of having published the most posts for us).

Section 108(c) applies to extend a judgment lien pending termination of the automatic stay. State law grants a judgment creditor a lien on all the judgment debtor’s personal property when the creditor obtains from the court and serves on the judgment debtor an order for appearance and examination (ORAP) to discover assets. The lien, which is not publicly recorded, lasts for one year.

On October 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, to decide the issue of whether a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license agreement under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code terminates the rights of the licensee to use the applicable trademarks. No. 17-1657, 2018 WL 2939184 (U.S. Oct. 26, 2018). The appeal arises from a decision by the U.S.

Dixie Electric, LLC, along with twelve affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Code for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-12477). Dixie Electric, based in Houston, Texas, is a provider of electrical infrastructure materials and services to the upstream and midstream oil industries.

A license agreement “deemed rejected by operation of law” could not be acquired under a court-approved asset purchase agreement, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Oct. 29, 2018. In re Provider Meds LLC, 2018 WL 5317445, *2 (5th Cir. Oct. 29, 2018). Although the acquirer claimed “that it purchased a patent license from [the] debtors in bankruptcy sales of their estates,” the court explained that “a rejected executory contract … could not have been transferred by the bankruptcy sales in question … .” Id., at *1.

The Bottom Line