Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Legal uncertainty abounds for intellectual property licensees and licensors when their license counterparties enter the murky waters of bankruptcy. When a licensor hits the skids, a licensee's two primary concerns should include: 1) whether the protections afforded by Bankruptcy Code section 365(n) are available if the debtor-licensor rejects the license; and 2) protecting its rights if the debtor-licensor seeks to sell the intellectual property. By contrast, when a licensee considers filing for bankruptcy, it must consider whether it can assume or assign the license.
Assuming, Rejecting, and Assigning IP Licenses
A key decision for any debtor is whether to reject, or assume and assign its “executory contracts.” By assuming a contract, a debtor reaffirms the contract and agrees to honor its obligations going forward. To assume a contract, the debtor must cure or provide “adequate assurance” that all defaults will be cured, and provide adequate assurance of future performance. By rejecting a contract, the debtor disavows the contract and refuses to continue performing thereunder. A rejection is treated as a prepetition breach of the contract, and the counterparty is entitled to a general unsecured claim, which may be paid only cents on the dollar. Last, the debtor may assign a contract to such party, notwithstanding any contractual provision prohibiting assignment, so long as a debtor provides adequate assurance that the assignee can perform the contractual obligations.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.