Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] 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.
*May exclude premium content
By Marisa L. Byram
While commercial leases and the force majeure clauses contained in such leases vary widely, a recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois may provide guidance to parties and help them to resolve similar disputes without resorting to the courts.
By Dana Delman and John Vukmanovic
In attempts to alleviate the impact of job losses and business disruption due to COVID-19, state and local governments have passed emergency orders and regulations temporarily prohibiting evictions and extending deadlines to pay rent, among other restrictions. When those restrictions are lifted, there is no guarantee that they will have done more than delay the inevitable: eviction and bankruptcy.
By Rudolph J. Di Massa, Jr. and Geoffrey A. Heaton
In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code “travel with” the claim, and not with the claimant.
By Francis J. Lawall and Marcy J. McLaughlin Smith
Under the Bankruptcy Code, not only can the initial recipient of a fraudulent conveyance be held liable, but so too can a subsequent transferee. However, there can be important nuances in the challenged transaction that may provide a subsequent transferee with a substantial defense.