Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In In re Tempnology, the First Circuit held that the debtor’s rejection of a trademark license strips the nondebtor licensee of any right to continue to use the trademarks. In so doing, the court takes the same approach as the Fourth Circuit and rejects the approaches advocated by the Third and Seventh Circuits.
In In re Tempnology, LLC, 879 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 2018), the First Circuit held (in a 2-1 decision) that the debtor’s rejection of a trademark license strips the nondebtor licensee of any right to continue to use the trademarks. In so doing, the court takes the same approach as the Fourth Circuit in its controversial Lubrizol decision and rejects the approaches advocated by Judge Ambro of the Third Circuit in his Exide concurrence and the Seventh Circuit in its Sunbeam decision. Tempnology thus deepens the circuit split between the Fourth and Seventh Circuits over this issue, and highlights the general confusion that still remains 40 years after enactment of the present Bankruptcy Code over the effect of rejection.
By Mark Page
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC
The question is whether a debtor’s rejection of its agreement granting a license “terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law.”
By Theresa A. Driscoll
With increasing frequency, Chapter 7 trustees are looking to insolvent parents as well as colleges and universities to avoid and recover for estate creditors payments made by insolvent debtors for the benefit of the debtors’ dependents. These cases are premised on the theory that the tuition payments being made by insolvent parents for the benefit of their children are avoidable as constructively fraudulent transfers because the parents do not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the payment of such tuition. Courts are divided as to whether the payment of a child’s tuition provides reasonably equivalent value to the insolvent parents.
By Stephanie Lieb and Dana Robbins
In its recent opinion in Taggart v. Lorenzen, the Supreme Court decided that “[a] court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.” Although this standard appears to be new, it is more than a century old and “brings the old soil” from civil contempt with it.
By Michael L. Cook
A bankruptcy court decision recently detailed how courts applying Bankruptcy Code §303(i) can sanction creditors who “abuse … the power given to [them] … to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition.” The decision shows why the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy requires careful pre-filing legal judgment.