Skip to main content

Timothy J. McKeon

Associate

[email protected]

+1.617.348.4924

Share:

Tim focuses his practice primarily on bankruptcy and restructuring matters. In the past, Tim has represented chapter 11 debtors, secured and unsecured creditors, indenture trustees, and defendants in bankruptcy litigation matters. 

Prior to joining Mintz, Tim was an associate in the Boston office of a full-service law firm, where he worked on a variety of bankruptcy and litigation matters. Earlier Tim was an associate in the Portland, Maine office of a regional, full-service law firm, where he gained substantial experience representing Chapter 11 debtors. While in law school, Tim served as a judicial intern to Honorable Carla E. Craig of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Honorable Robert E. Grossman of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. Tim also served as a legal extern for the Department of Enforcement at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).   

Education

  • Brooklyn Law School (JD)
  • College of the Holy Cross (BA)

Involvement

  • Member, American Bankruptcy Institute

Viewpoints

Viewpoint General

Changes to Preference Practices Under New Bankruptcy Law

September 4, 2019 | Blog | By Tim McKeon

Viewpoint
This past May, in a highly-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has the same effect as a breach of contract outside of bankruptcy.  The decision resolves an inter-circuit split on the effect of a bankrupt trademark licensor’s rejection of a trademark license, a question regarded by legal experts in the trademark community as the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing. 
Viewpoint
On May 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a debtor-licensor’s ‘rejection’ of a trademark license agreement under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code does not terminate the licensee’s rights to continue to use the trademark.  The decision, issued in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, resolved a split among the Circuits, but may spawn additional issues regarding non-debtor contractual rights in bankruptcy.