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.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
By Michael L. Cook
By enforcing deadlines strictly, refusing to hear appeals from interlocutory orders, and rarely bypassing the district court for direct appeals, appellate courts have generally avoided what they view as unnecessary work and delay. But a few courts have made important exceptions in the past year.
By Mark E. Felger and Simon E. Fraser
An opinion from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware provides a reminder of the potentially severe punishment that a party can suffer as a result of its violation of the automatic stay of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, even if the debtor does not suffer any actual damages as a result of the violation.
By Amanda Bronstad
Mass tort bankruptcies took some big hits in 2023, with two of them dismissed outright, and two more potentially hanging in the balance.
By Jimmy Hoover
The U.S. Supreme Court on January 9 debated the proper remedy for its 2022 ruling that Congress violated the Constitution when it imposed steep bankruptcy fee hikes on large debtors in some districts but not others.