I previously reminisced about the grand brand that used to be Polaroid. It’s still is an income-producing mark in at least China, India and Brazil. We know, because Polaroid Corp. brought an adversarial proceeding to avoid the transfer of the Polaroid marks to Ritchie Capital Management L.L.C. Thomas Petters had used the marks to secure loans from Ritchie Capital days before Petters was arrested for allegedly running a Ponzi scheme. Polaroid claims that Richie Capital “knowingly, purposefully and systematically subjected Polaroid and its assets to liens, claims, encumbrances, contractual obligations and liabilities for which Polaroid obtained no or inadequate value” and asks the court to avoid the transfer. Richie Capital retorts that the security interest in the trademarks was legitimate, to cover a bridge loan for the sale of the marks that fell though.
If Polaroid is unsuccessful Richie Capital will sell the marks; if successful the trustee is scheduled to sell them. Another blow to a brand barely hanging on.
Polaroid complaint here; Richie answer and counterclaims here. Security interest here and here (two parts).
© 2009 Pamela Chestek
