This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
After dividing the courts for a number of years, we finally have the answer to the big question of whether rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor deprives the licensee of the right to use the trademark. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC , 686 F.3d A rejection breaches a contract but does not rescind it.
After dividing the courts for a number of years, we finally have the answer to the big question of whether rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor deprives the licensee of the right to use the trademark. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC , 686 F.3d A rejection breaches a contract but does not rescind it.
“[E]nsnared between his involvement in a business that is legal under the laws of Arizona but illegal under federal law,” one debtor’s chapter 13 petition was recently dismissed due to his undisputed violations of the Controlled Substances Act. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona. LEXIS 256 (D.
When it comes to decisions on bankruptcy and trademark licenses, the In re Tempnology LLC bankruptcy case is the gift that keeps on giving. Following Tempnology’s rejection of an agreement containing a trademark licensee, the New Hampshire Bankruptcy Court ruled that the licensee could no longer use the licensed trademarks.
After dividing the courts for a number of years, we finally have the answer to the big question of whether rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor deprives the licensee of the right to use the trademark. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC , 686 F.3d A rejection breaches a contract but does not rescind it.
What is the effect of rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor? The case has gone from the bankruptcy court , to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel , and then to the First Circuit. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC , 686 F.3d The Big Question. 3d 382 (7th Cir. The Supreme Court Briefs.
The twists and turns of the In re Tempnology LLC bankruptcy case have been a frequent subject on this blog for good reason. The case addresses whether a trademark licensee, whose licensor files bankruptcy and rejects the license agreement, retains any rights to use the trademark — or instead is out of luck. A Wild Ride.
As a result of Purdue Pharma’s proposed plan of reorganization, and the ongoing opioid epidemic that continues to grip the nation, the debate over non-consensual third-party releases has gone mainstream despite being a popular tool for debtors for decades. 2015) (upholding bankruptcy ruling approving third-party releases).
Certain entities facing ongoing financial hardship will chose to seek Chapter 11 or other bankruptcy protection, and while PPP loan and Coronavirus-related EIDL generally are forgivable, exactly how such loan default will be treated through reorganization is the subject of much current litigation and has yet to be fully determined.
The Bankruptcy Code grants the power to avoid certain transactions to a bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession. In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico addressed this question, concluding, in the face of a split of authority, that there was such a requirement.
Our comprehensive services cater to businesses dealing with debtor companies or surplus inventory. Case Study: Machinery and Equipment Liquidation At Dudley Resources, we understand the urgency businesses face when dealing with debtor companies and the need for rapid machinery and equipment liquidation.
Bankruptcy and Restructuring Lawyers. Derek is the chair of the firm’s Creditors’ Rights and Bankruptcy practice group and a Fellow in the American College of Bankruptcy. Mike is also a partner in the firm’s Creditors’ Rights and Bankruptcy Practice Group.
Just in Time: New Bankruptcy Relief for Small Businesses. million) to take advantage of a new way to restructure under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. million) to take advantage of a new way to restructure under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. million of third-party debt is set to expire early 2021. By Jerrold L.
Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a creditor to obtain a judgment denying its debtor a discharge of debts incurred by false pretenses or actual fraud. Chrysalis Manufacturing Corp. Congress added the term “actual fraud” when it enacted the Bankruptcy Code in 1978. Ritz , 2016 WL 2842452 (2016).
Meryl Cowan is a member of the firm’s Labor & Employment group where she represents employers, manufacturers, and companies in all aspects of general employment, labor, and employment discrimination law.
John’s University School of Law American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff Endo Pharmaceuticals (“Endo”) develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes prescription pharmaceutical products. Endo filed a notice of suggestion of bankruptcy and automatic stay of proceedings in the D.C. Kathleen Gatti St.
Hanna Lahr practices in the firm’s Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy group. Hanna’s practice focuses on representing creditors and debtors, both in and out of court, to, among other things, enforce and/or restructure debt obligations, including through the bankruptcy process. Birmingham. Jacksonville.
John’s University School of Law American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff Under section 503(b) of Title 11 of the United States Code (“Bankruptcy Code”), allowed administrative expenses have priority status in receiving distributions from the bankruptcy estate. [1] Zhiqian Ke St. 2] In PacifiCorp v.
Johns University School of Law American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff Section 1109(b) of Title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code) provides that a party in interest may appear and be heard on any issue in a chapter 11 case. [1] a debtor, a creditor), but does not otherwise define party in interest. [2]
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 19,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content