July 22, 2014

Broad Reading of Executory Contract when Trademark License Obligations Are Unfulfilled

In a case originating out of bankruptcy court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s finding that a perpetual, royalty free, assignable, transferable, exclusive license granted as part of the sale of the business operations, assets and intellectual property associated with two bread baking brands was an executory contract.  Lewis Bros. Bakeries Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp., Case No. 11-1850 (8th Cir., Aug. 30, 2012) (Bye, J.).

In 1996, Interstate Brands sold its Butternut Bread baking business operations and assets in the Chicago area and its Sunbeam Bread baking business operations and assets in the Central Illinois territory to Lewis Brothers Bakeries.  The parties entered into a license agreement, granting Lewis Brothers a perpetual, royalty-free, assignable, transferable, exclusive license to the brands and trademarks in certain parts of Illinois. In 2004, Interstate Brands filed for bankruptcy protection and later asserted that the license that was included with the sale of the two baking businesses was an executory contract because there were performance obligations on both sides, which if not performed, would excuse performance by the other side.  Interstate Brands also asserted it would have the power to maintain or reject the deal in bankruptcy court.  Lewis Brothers had previously agreed that it would be a material breach if it failed to maintain the character and quality of the goods sold under the trademarks in the license agreement and Interstate Brands had the standard obligations of notice, forbearance of licensing, and defense of the marks. 

Lewis Brothers filed an adversary proceeding within the bankruptcy case for a declaratory judgment that the license agreement was not an executory contract.  The bankruptcy court disagreed, holding that Lewis Brothers maintained obligations to, among other things, defend the trademarks and control the quality of the goods under the license agreement.  The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.

The 8th Circuit affirmed, holding that the license agreement was an executory contract because the parties maintained at least one remaining material obligation. The court followed Countryman for analyzing executory contracts, that is, the court analyzed whether obligations remain on both sides so underperformed that the failure of either party to complete performance of those obligations would constitute a material breach excusing the performance of the other.  The 8th Circuit found that the obligations remaining on a license agreement entered into as part of the sale of a business was an executory contract. The court distinguished precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Exide Technologies, on the grounds that Lewis Brothers, the non-debtor, maintained the obligation of the non-debtor to maintain quality standards.

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author


Ulrika E. Mattsson is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Chicago office.  She focuses her practice on intellectual property litigation, counseling and prosecution.

312 984 3665

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.