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 Steven B. Smith and Silvia Stockman
This article explores the competing factors the Bankruptcy Court considered and the rationale underlying its decision to grant the drastic relief of dismissing the NRA’s bankruptcy case.
By By Andrew C. Kassner and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.
How is administrative claim status obtained in a bankruptcy case, and what risks does a service or goods supplier take by continuing to do business with the debtor after commencement of the bankruptcy case?
By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr. and Drew S. McGehrin
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware court held that a Chapter 7 trustee was bound by the pre-conversion actions of the debtors, and that the trustee would not be permitted to step into the shoes of the then-dissolved official committee of unsecured creditors to pursue certain causes of action.
By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr. and Malcolm Bates
Parties holding potential claims against non-debtor third parties that are arguably “related to” the bankruptcy estate must weigh the risks and benefits of actively prosecuting such claims. The mere fact that a bankruptcy trustee could pursue such claims as property of the bankruptcy estate under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code will not be enough to argue that such claims are conclusively barred by the automatic stay.