LEXISNEXIS A.S. PRATT
EDITOR'S NOTE: COMPARATIVE LAW Steven A. Meyerowitz
WHAT'S PAST IS PROLOGUE: THE EUROPEAN MOVEMENT TOWARD HARMONIZED PRE-INSOLVENCY BUSINESS RESTRUCTURINGS CONTRASTED WITH THE AMERICAN PREFERENCE FOR GOING-CONCERN ASSET SALES Harry Rajak, Patrick E. Mears, and Edward O. Mears
LANDMARK COURT OPINION INCREASES LIABILITY RISK PROFILE FOR GERMAN PORTFOLIO COMPANY MANAGEMENT Bernd Meyer-Lwy and Carl Pickerill
SPLIT FIRST CIRCUIT PREVENTS NON-DEBTOR LICENSEE FROM USING REJECTED TRADEMARK LICENSE Michael L. Cook
PIERRE V. MIDLAND CREDIT: THREE SIGNIFICANT LESSONS FOR DEBT COLLECTORS Ryan M. Holz and Douglas R. Sargent
ALL IS NOT LOST: COURTS ALLOW DEBTORS TO REDEEM SOLD REAL ESTATE TAXES IN BANKRUPTCY TO AVOID LOSING THEIR PROPERTY Michael T. Benz, James P. Sullivan, and Bryan E. Jacobson
Pratt's Journal of Bankruptcy Law
Editor's Note: Comparative Law Steven A. Meyerowitz
What's Past Is Prologue: The European Movement Toward Harmonized Pre-Insolvency Business Restructurings Contrasted with The American Preference for Going-Concern Asset Sales Harry Rajak, Patrick E. Mears, and Edward O. Mears
Landmark Court Opinion Increases Liability Risk Profile for German Portfolio Company Management Bernd Meyer-Lwy and Carl Pickerill
Split First Circuit Prevents Non-Debtor Licensee from Using Rejected Trademark License Michael L. Cook
Pierre v. Midland Credit: Three Significant Lessons for Debt Collectors Ryan M. Holz and Douglas R. Sargent
All Is Not Lost: Courts Allow Debtors to Redeem Sold Real Estate Taxes in Bankruptcy to Avoid Losing Their Property Michael T. Benz, James P. Sullivan, and Bryan E. Jacobson
105 136 142 147 152
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION? For questions about the Editorial Content appearing in these volumes or reprint permission, please call: Kent K. B. Hanson, J.D., at ........................................................................... 415-908-3207 Email: ........................................................................................... firstname.lastname@example.org Outside the United States and Canada, please call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (973) 820-2000
For assistance with replacement pages, shipments, billing or other customer service matters, please call: Customer Services Department at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (800) 833-9844 Outside the United States and Canada, please call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (518) 487-3385 Fax Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (800) 828-8341 Customer Service Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . http://www.lexisnexis.com/custserv/
For information on other Matthew Bender publications, please call Your account manager or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (800) 223-1940 Outside the United States and Canada, please call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (937) 247-0293
Library of Congress Card Number: 80-68780 ISBN: 978-0-7698-7846-1 (print) ISBN: 978-0-7698-7988-8 (eBook) ISSN: 1931-6992 Cite this publication as: [author name], [article title], [vol. no.] PRATT'S JOURNAL OF BANKRUPTCY LAW [page number] ([year]) Example: Patrick E. Mears, The Winds of Change Intensify over Europe: Recent European Union Actions Firmly Embrace the "Rescue and Recovery" Culture for Business Recovery, 10 PRATT'S JOURNAL OF BANKRUPTCY LAW 349 (2014) This publication is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. A.S. Pratt is a registered trademark of Reed Elsevier Properties SA, used under license. Copyright 2018 Reed Elsevier Properties SA, used under license by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No copyright is claimed by LexisNexis, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., or Reed Elsevier Properties SA, in the text of statutes, regulations, and excerpts from court opinions quoted within this work. Permission to copy material may be licensed for a fee from the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Mass. 01923, telephone (978) 750-8400. An A.S. Pratt Publication
Editorial Office 230 Park Ave., 7th Floor, New York, NY 10169 (800) 543-6862 www.lexisnexis.com
Editor-in-Chief, Editor & Board of Editors
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEVEN A. MEYEROWITZ President, Meyerowitz Communications Inc.
EDITOR VICTORIA PRUSSEN SPEARS Senior Vice President, Meyerowitz Communications Inc.
BOARD OF EDITORS SCOTT L. BAENA
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP
LESLIE A. BERKOFF Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP
TED A. BERKOWITZ Farrell Fritz, P.C.
ANDREW P. BROZMAN Clifford Chance US LLP
MICHAEL L. COOK Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
MARK G. DOUGLAS Jones Day
MARK J. FRIEDMAN DLA Piper
STUART I. GORDON Rivkin Radler LLP
PATRICK E. MEARS Barnes & Thornburg LLP
DERYCK A. PALMER Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
PRATT'S JOURNAL OF BANKRUPTCY LAW is published eight times a year by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Copyright 2018 Reed Elsevier Properties SA., used under license by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this journal may be reproduced in any form--by microfilm, xerography, or otherwise--or incorporated into any information retrieval system without the written permission of the copyright owner. For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from Pratt's Journal of Bankruptcy Law, please access www.copyright.com or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For subscription information and customer service, call 1-800-833-9844. Direct any editorial inquires and send any material for publication to Steven A. Meyerowitz, Editor-in-Chief, Meyerowitz Communications Inc., 26910 Grand Central Parkway, No. 18R, Floral Park, NY 11005, email@example.com, 718.224.2258. Material for publication is welcomed--articles, decisions, or other items of interest to bankers, officers of financial institutions, and their attorneys. This publication is designed to be accurate and authoritative, but neither the publisher nor the authors are rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services in this publication. If legal or other expert advice is desired, retain the services of an appropriate professional. The articles and columns reflect only the present considerations and views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated, any of the former or present clients of the authors or their firms or organizations, or the editors or publisher. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Pratt's Journal of Bankruptcy Law, LexisNexis Matthew Bender, Attn: Customer Service, 9443 Springboro Pike, Miamisburg, OH 45342-9907.
PRATT'S JOURNAL OF BANKRUPTCY LAW
Split First Circuit Prevents Non-Debtor Licensee from Using Rejected Trademark License
By Michael L. Cook*
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently held that a Chapter 11 debtor-licensor's rejection of a trademark license "left [the non-debtor licensee] with only a pre-petition damages claim in lieu of any obligation by Debtor to further perform under . . . the trademark license . . . ." The author of this article discusses the decision and why the case is ripe for U.S. Supreme Court review.
A Chapter 11 debtor-licensor's rejection of a trademark license "left [the non-debtor licensee ("M")] with only a pre-petition damages claim in lieu of any obligation by Debtor to further perform under . . . the trademark license . . . ," held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 12, 2018.1 Reversing the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") and affirming the bankruptcy court, the First Circuit explained that "we favor the categorical approach of leaving trademark licenses unprotected from [bankruptcy] court approved rejection."2 Thus, M's "right to use Debtor's trademarks did not otherwise survive rejection of the" license.3 "[P]ractically speaking," said the court, the issue for the parties was "whether to classify as prepetition or post-petition liability any damages caused by Debtor's failure to honor its executory obligations" under the rejected trademark license.4 But the dissent urged an equitable approach "guided by the terms of the [parties' agreement] and non-bankruptcy law," consistent with a major decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the BAP had followed.
The key trademark issue, conceded the First Circuit, "poses for this circuit an
* Michael L. Cook, of counsel at Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP and a member of the Board of Editors of Pratt's Journal of Bankruptcy Law, has served as a partner in the firm's New York office for 16 years, devoting his practice to business reorganization and creditors' rights litigation, including mediation and arbitration. He may be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
1 Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC (In re Tempnology), LLC, 879 F.3d 389, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 870, at *1 (1st Cir. Jan. 12, 2018) (2-1).
2 Id. at *34. 3 Id. at *10. 4 Id. at *14.
CHAPTER 11 DEBTOR-LICENSOR'S REJECTION OF TRADEMARK LICENSE
issue of first impression concerning which other circuits are split."5 It expressly noted the Seventh Circuit's contrary view in Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC,6 a view shared by an important judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.7 The First Circuit, however, followed the approach taken by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enters, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc.8 The U.S. Supreme Court may soon get a chance to resolve this circuit split.
The Chapter 11 debtor ("Debtor") and its licensee, M, had signed a marketing and distribution agreement in 2012 giving M, among other things, a "non-exclusive, non-transferrable, limited license . . . to use [Debtor's] trademark and logo . . . for the limited purpose of performing its obligations," subject to certain limitations.
The parties later litigated various issues under the agreement until 2015. After sustaining operating losses, Debtor filed a Chapter 11 petition and moved to reject its agreement with M under Bankruptcy Code ("Code") 365(a). According to the Debtor, "it sought to reject the Agreement because it hindered Debtor's ability to derive revenue from other marketing and distribution opportunities."9 Although M objected, the bankruptcy court granted the motion, holding, among other things, that the trademark license was not included within the protections of Code 365(n) for certain intellectual property, and was thus "unprotected from rejection."10 M appealed to the BAP for the First Circuit. The BAP affirmed other parts of the bankruptcy court's decision, but "disagreed as to the effect of " its trademark holding. "Rather than finding that rejection extinguished [M's] rights, the BAP followed the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Sunbeam . . . ."11 According to the BAP, "because [Code] 365(g) deems the effect of rejection to be a breach of contract, and a licensor's
5 Id. at *2. 6 686 F.3d 372, 377 (7th Cir. 2012) (Easterbrook, Ch. J.) (right to use debtor's trademark continues post-rejection). 7 In re Exide Techs, 607 F.3d 957, 96468 (3d Cir. 2010) (Ambro, J., concurring) ("a trademark licensor's rejection of a trademark agreement . . . does not necessarily deprive the trademark licensee of its rights in the licensed mark"). 8 756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir. 1985) (effect of rejection was to terminate intellectual property license). 9 In re Tempnology, LLC, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 870, at *6. 10 Id. at *8. 11 Id. at *9.
PRATT'S JOURNAL OF BANKRUPTCY LAW
breach of a trademark agreement outside the bankruptcy context does not necessarily terminate a licensee's rights, rejection under 365(g) likewise does not necessarily eliminate those rights. Thus, the BAP reversed the bankruptcy court's determination that [M] no longer had protectable rights in the Debtor's trademarks and trade names."12
THE FIRST CIRCUIT
The First Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court. "Unlike the BAP and the Seventh Circuit [in Sunbeam]" it held "that [M's] right to use Debtor's trademarks did not otherwise survive rejection of " the parties' agreement.13
Statutory Framework for Rejection
The Court of Appeals first explained the statutory framework for contract rejection in reorganization cases. Code "365(a) permits the debtor-inpossession to assume those contracts that are beneficial and reject those that may hinder its recovery," thus furthering "Chapter 11's `paramount objective' of rehabilitating debtors."14 After rejecting a contract, "a Debtor is left with a liability for what the Code deems to be a pre-petition breach of the contract."15 Distinguishing between "statutory breach" and "common law breach," the court relied on the Fourth Circuit's controversial decision in Lubrizol Enters, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers Inc.16
Legislative Response to Lubrizol Congress responded to the Lubrizol decision three years later in 1988 by enacting Code 365(n), giving "a [nondebtor] licensee of intellectual property rights a choice between treating the license as terminated and asserting a claim for pre-petition damages--a remedy the licensee held already under 365(g)--or retaining its intellectual property rights under the license."17 In this Code amendment, Congress also defined intellectual property in 101(35A), but specifically excluded trademarks from the new statutory protection. According
12 Id. 13 Id. at *10. 14 Id. at *11 (citing Mason v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re FBI Distrib. Corp.), 330 F.3d 36, 41 (1st Cir. 2003)). 15 Id. (citing 11 U.S.C. 365(g)). 16 756 F.2d 1043, 1048 (4th Cir. 1985) ("[T]he statutory `breach' contemplated by 365(g) controls, and provides only a money damages remedy for the non-bankrupt party . . . . Allowing specific performance would obviously undercut the core purpose of rejection under 365(a)."). 17 In re Tempnology, LLC, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 870, at *12.
CHAPTER 11 DEBTOR-LICENSOR'S REJECTION OF TRADEMARK LICENSE
to the First Circuit, "[t]rademark licenses (hardly something one would forget about) are not listed [in the new definition of intellectual property], even though relatively obscure property such as `mask work . . .' is included . . . . Nor does the [new definition] contain any catchall or residual clause from which one might infer the inclusion of properties beyond those expressly listed."18 Moreover, reasoned the court, this case did not present "a request by a party following rejection to recover its own property temporarily in the hands of the Debtor. Rather, it presents a demand by a party to continue using the debtor's property."19
The Fresh Start Rationale
The court then explained its rejection of the Seventh Circuit's Sunbeam decision. Noting that the goal of 365(a) was to release the Debtor "from burdensome obligations," it declined to accept Sunbeam's premise that a debtor should be freed from "any continuing performance obligations under a trademark license even while preserving the licensee's right to use the trademark."20 In this case, reasoned the court, Debtor should not be forced to choose between performing its obligations under the license agreement or risking the loss of its trademarks under applicable federal law. Any such "restriction on Debtor's ability to free itself from its executory obligations, even if limited to trademark licenses alone, would depart from the manner in which Section 365 (a) operates."21 "In sum, . . . Sunbeam entirely ignores the residual enforcement burden it would impose on the debtor just as the Code otherwise allows the debtor to free itself from executory burdens. [It] also rests on a logic that invites further degradation of the debtor's fresh start options."22
Majority Response to Dissent
The dissent essentially argued for "equitable treatment" of the non-debtor licensee, M, when a debtor-licensor breaches the trademark license.23 In response, the majority reasoned that "a case-specific, equitable approach" would entail "added cost and delay" in distinguishing "between greater and lesser burdens" among the debtor and the non-debtor licensee.24 In short, the
18 Id. at *24. 19 Id. at *25. 20 Id. at *27. 21 Id. at *29. 22 Id. at *33. 23 Id. at *39. 24 Id. at *33.
PRATT'S JOURNAL OF BANKRUPTCY LAW
majority wanted to preserve the debtor's "fresh start options."25
COMMENT The majority in Tempnology relied on the notion that federal bankruptcy law
preempts federal trademark law, taking a "categorical approach" that values reorganization over other concerns. Unless the First Circuit rehears, vacates and reverses the panel opinion, the case is ripe for U.S. Supreme Court review.
The Seventh Circuit's Sunbeam decision is more persuasive. First, merely because trademarks are not covered by the protection of Code 365(n), means nothing: "an omission is just an omission."26 "According to the Senate committee report on the bill that included 365(n), the omission was designed to allow more time for study, not to approve Lubrizol."27 Second, "[o]utside of bankruptcy, a licensor's breach does not terminate a licensee's right to use intellectual property . . . . [N]othing about [the rejection] process implies that any rights of the other contracting party have been vaporized . . . . [R]ejection is not the functional equivalent of a rescission, rendering void the contract and requiring that the parties be put back in the positions they occupied before the contract was formed."28 Finally, "[s]cholars uniformly criticize Lubrizol . . . . Lubrizol devoted scant attention to the question whether rejection cancels a contract, worrying instead about the right way to identify executory contracts to which the rejection power applies."29
25 Id. 26 686 F.3d at 375. 27 Id. 28 Id. at 376377 (quoting Thompkins v. Lil' Joe Records Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1306 (11th Cir. 2007)). 29 Id. at 377.