Today in bankruptcy I taught In re Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 20, 2015). The case isn't in my casebook (although some might notice that I presciently included in the problem sets a recurring character named Ronald Grump, a real estate developer with frequent bankruptcy dealings), but I added it to my syllabus this fall because of the election connection. It was only today, however, that I realized what a hugely important decision it was in retrospect.
The case involved an attempt by Donald and Ivanka Trump to terminate the debtor's license to use their trademark name, which had been pledged by the debtor as collateral for a loan, despite being nonassignable by its terms. The Trumps sued in state court to terminated the trademark based on an alleged breach of the license agreement, but the debtor's bankruptcy filing stayed the suit. The Trumps moved to lift the stay. The bankruptcy court said that the trademark license was an executory contract, and under the hypothetical test for assumption, said that the debtor could not assume the license, and therefore lifted the stay to allow the state court termination litigation to proceed (which I assume resulted in termination).
Here's the thing. Imagine if this case had come out differently. What if the bankruptcy estate could have assumed and assigned the Trump trademark? And what if it were happening during the election season or now? One can only imagine the bidding war that might have developed.