In Re Exide Technologies Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A debtor in bankruptcy sought to reject a trademark license agreement to reclaim a trademark it had sold. The court held the agreement was not an executory contract subject to rejection because the licensee had already substantially performed its obligations by paying the full purchase price.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a contract is not executory if one party has substantially performed its material obligations, even if minor contractual duties remain. It prevents debtors from unwinding deals where they have already received the primary benefit.
In Re Exide Technologies Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 1991, Exide Technologies sold its industrial battery business to EnerSys for approximately $135 million. The sale included a perpetual, exclusive, royalty-free license for EnerSys to use the “Exide” trademark in that business. The transaction was documented in numerous agreements, which the court treated as a single integrated contract. EnerSys paid the full purchase price and operated the business for over a decade. In 2002, Exide filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, seeking to re-enter the industrial battery market under its own name, moved to reject the agreement with EnerSys under 11 U.S.C. § 365. Exide argued the agreement was an executory contract because EnerSys had ongoing obligations, such as maintaining quality standards and adhering to use restrictions on the trademark. The bankruptcy court and district court agreed with Exide, permitting rejection of the contract. EnerSys appealed to the Third Circuit.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a complex asset purchase agreement, which includes a fully paid-for, perpetual trademark license, an executory contract subject to rejection under 11 U.S.C. § 365 where the non-debtor party has paid the full purchase price but has minor, ongoing contractual obligations?
The agreement is not an executory contract and therefore cannot be rejected Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volu
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Is a complex asset purchase agreement, which includes a fully paid-for, perpetual trademark license, an executory contract subject to rejection under 11 U.S.C. § 365 where the non-debtor party has paid the full purchase price but has minor, ongoing contractual obligations?
Conclusion
This decision reinforces that the substantial performance doctrine is a critical limitation Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis no
Legal Rule
An executory contract, subject to rejection under 11 U.S.C. § 365, is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit an
Legal Analysis
The court applied the Countryman test for executory contracts, which requires material, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A contract is not “executory” under § 365 of the Bankruptcy