Tropicana Trademark Lawsuit
-
Upload
ryan-gile-esq -
Category
Documents
-
view
266 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Tropicana Trademark Lawsuit
BAY:01608040v1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re: TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al.,
Debtors.
Chapter 11 Case No. 08-10856 (KJC) Jointly Administered
ICAHN AGENCY SERVICES LLC, ICAHN PARTNERS LP, ICAHN PARTNERS MASTER FUND LP, ICAHN PARTNERS MASTER FUND II LP, ICAHN PARTNERS MASTER FUND III LP, TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT INC., AND NEW TROPICANA HOLDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v. TROPICANA LAS VEGAS, INC. and HOTEL RAMADA OF NEVADA, LLC.
Defendants.
Adv. Proc. No. 10-_____ (KJC)
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Icahn Agency Services LLC, as administrative and collateral agent (the
“Exit Facility Agent”) for the lenders under the December 29, 2009 OpCo Exit Facility
(the “OpCo Exit Facility Lenders”), Icahn Partners LP, Icahn Partners Master Fund LP,
Icahn Partners Master Fund II LP, Icahn Partners Master Fund III LP, Tropicana
Entertainment Inc. (“New Tropicana”), and New Tropicana Holdings, Inc. (“New
Tropicana Holdings”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned
counsel, bring this action against defendants Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc. and Hotel
Ramada of Nevada, LLC. In support thereof, Plaintiffs hereby allege, upon knowledge as
BAY:01608040v1
2
to themselves and their conduct, and upon information and belief as to all other matters,
as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiffs commence this adversary proceeding to enforce prior orders1 of
this Court and to enjoin the Defendants’ wrongful efforts to assert in a Nevada state court
action that they, and not New Tropicana Holdings, are the owners of the “TROPICANA”
and “TROP” trademarks and service marks (the “Tropicana Trademarks”).
2. For more than 30 years, the OpCo and LandCo Debtors (defined below)
represented to the world that the Tropicana Trademarks were owned by an OpCo Debtor.
Among other things, billions of dollars of acquisitions, sales and loans were made based
upon those representations. The lenders and creditors who became the owners of the
reorganized OpCo and LandCo Debtors were told and understood an OpCo Debtor to be
the owner of the Tropicana Trademarks when they loaned money pre-petition to OpCo
and LandCo. After the filing, DIP loans and use of cash collateral premised upon an
OpCo Debtor’s ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks were approved by this Court
after giving all interested parties an opportunity to object. And most recently, the values
ascribed to the OpCo and LandCo estates and plans of reorganization were premised
upon ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks resting with OpCo, and this Court entered
1 The relevant orders include those (a) authorizing the use of cash collateral and the establishment of DIP financing, (b) confirming the Debtors’ plans of reorganization, (c) granting the Exit Facility Agent a valid and perfected security interest in the Tropicana Trademarks for the benefit of the OpCo Exit Facility Lenders, free and clear of all other liens, claims and encumbrances, and (d) annulling the automatic stay to permit the Defendants to proceed with the state court action in Nevada solely concerning the dispute over the right to use the Tropicana Trademarks without a license fee.
BAY:01608040v1
3
orders approving the plans of reorganization and granting the OpCo Exit Facility Lenders
liens on the Tropicana Trademarks free and clear of all liens, claims and encumbrances.
3. There was only one issue open for litigation in Nevada under the plans of
reorganization: Defendants’ alleged right to use the Tropicana Trademark on a royalty
free basis in connection with their Las Vegas operations as they had when the LandCo
Debtors were wholly owned by the OpCo Debtors. But contrary to prior assurances to
this Court by their counsel – stating that they would not seek “any property” in the
Nevada state court action entitled Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc., et al. v. Aztar Corporation,
et al., Case No. A09595469-B (Nev. D. Ct., Clark County) (the “Nevada Action”) –
Defendants are now seeking a declaration in the Nevada Action that they actually own the
Tropicana Trademarks based upon a document that they describe as a “newly discovered”
agreement from thirty years ago (the “1980 Trade Name Agreement”).
4. Defendants’ claim that the document is “newly discovered” (even if true)
offers no justification to revisit the Court’s prior orders. The LandCo entities had as
much access to the 1980 Trade Name Agreement as the OpCo entities during the
bankruptcy proceedings.
5. At this juncture, the existence of the 1980 Trade Name Agreement is
meaningless. The agreement has long since been extinguished, if not by 2002 when
Aztar Corporation became the beneficial owner of all the equity in the entity alleged to
have contingent reversionary interest, then by operation of law subsequently by, inter
alia, the failure to record the agreement with the United States Patent & Trademark
Office prior to the transfer of title to the Tropicana Trademarks to Tropicana
Entertainment, LLC in 2007. But according to Defendants, the (long-extinguished) 1980
BAY:01608040v1
4
Trade Name Agreement is a basis upon which to change everything. Based on upon that
document, Defendants are now seeking a sub rosa plan modification in the Nevada
Action – one that would result in a massive windfall for Defendants and their owners to
the extreme detriment of Plaintiffs with cash collateral, financing and security interests at
stake.
6. As this Court is aware, the Debtors in this complex bankruptcy fell into
two groups: (1) the “LandCo Debtors,” which included the entities previously involved in
the ownership and operation of the Tropicana Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada
(the “Tropicana Las Vegas”);2 and (2) the “OpCo Debtors,” which included the entities
previously involved in the operation of the Tropicana Casino & Resort Atlantic City in
New Jersey (the “Tropicana A.C.”), the Tropicana Express in Laughlin, Nevada, and
other casinos.3 As described below, the Defendants now threaten to undermine a series
of key orders of this Court that ultimately vested the ownership of the Tropicana
2 The LandCo Debtors were financed by the “LandCo Credit Facility,” which was secured by the assets relating to the business of Tropicana Las Vegas. The LandCo Debtors included: Adamar of Nevada Inc.; Hotel Ramada of Nevada, Corp.; Tropicana Development Company, LLC; Tropicana Enterprises; Tropicana Las Vegas Holdings, LLC; Tropicana Las Vegas Resort and Casino, LLC; and Tropicana Real Estate Company, LLC.
3 The OpCo Debtors were financed by the “OpCo Credit Facility,” which was secured by all of the Debtors’ assets that were not encumbered by the LandCo Credit Facility. The OpCo Debtors included: Aztar Corporation; Tropicana Entertainment, LLC; Adamar Garage Corporation; Argosy of Louisiana, Inc.; Atlantic-Deauville Inc.; Aztar Development Corporation; Aztar Indiana Gaming Company, LLC; Aztar Indiana Gaming Corporation; Aztar Missouri Gaming Corporation; Aztar Riverboat Holding Company, LLC; Catfish Queen Partnership in Commendam; Centroplex Centre Convention Hotel, L.L.C.; Columbia Properties Laughlin, LLC; Columbia Properties Tahoe, LLC; Columbia Properties Vicksburg, LLC; CP Baton Rouge Casino, L.L.C.; CP Laughlin Realty, LLC; Jazz Enterprises, Inc.; JMBS Casino LLC; Manchester Mall, Inc.; Ramada New Jersey Holdings Corporation; Ramada New Jersey, Inc.; St. Louis Riverboat Entertainment Inc.; Tahoe Horizon, LLC; Tropicana Entertainment Holdings, LLC; Tropicana Entertainment Intermediate Holdings, LLC; Tropicana Express, Inc.; and Tropicana Finance Corp.
BAY:01608040v1
5
Trademarks in a subsidiary of New Tropicana4 and granted a valid security interest in the
Tropicana Trademarks to the Exit Facility Agent.
7. This Court’s May 30, 2008, Cash Collateral Order (Docket No. 219) (the
“Cash Collateral Order”) confirmed that: (1) Tropicana Entertainment, LLC, an OpCo
Debtor and the former parent company of the other Debtors, was the owner of the
Tropicana Trademarks, and (2) the OpCo Credit Facility lenders (the “OpCo Lenders”)
had a valid and perfected security interest in all of the assets of the OpCo Debtors,
including the Tropicana Trademarks. All parties in interest, such as the lenders under the
LandCo Credit Facility (the “LandCo Lenders”), could have challenged these findings
during the 90-day challenge period. None of them did so because all of them knew that
Tropicana Entertainment, LLC owned the Tropicana Trademarks and all of them had
acted in reliance on that knowledge (in some cases for years). Following the Cash
Collateral Order, the DIP lenders loaned millions of dollars in reliance on the Court’s
finding that Tropicana Entertainment, LLC could validly pledge (and therefore owned),
the Tropicana Trademarks as collateral to the DIP lenders. The Cash Collateral Order
also confirmed that the LandCo Lenders had no security interest in the Tropicana
Trademarks. Indeed, Onex Corporation and its affiliated companies (collectively,
“Onex”) – now the controlling stockholders of Defendant Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc. –
acquired a majority interest in the LandCo Credit Facility after the Cash Collateral Order
made it crystal clear that the LandCo Lenders had no claim to ownership of the Tropicana
4 That subsidiary, Tahoe Horizon, LLC, subsequently transferred the Tropicana Trademarks to New Tropicana Holdings.
BAY:01608040v1
6
Trademarks. Indeed, Onex had absolutely no expectation that the Reorganized LandCo
Debtors5 would own the Tropicana Trademarks.
8. This Court’s May 5, 2009, Plan Confirmation Order (the “Confirmation
Order”) (Docket No. 2001) confirmed the reorganization plan of the OpCo Debtors (the
“OpCo Plan”) (as amended, Docket No. 2545), which included the Tropicana
Trademarks as an asset of Tropicana Entertainment, LLC (an OpCo Debtor). That same
day, the Court confirmed the reorganization plan of the LandCo Debtors (the “LandCo
Plan”) (Docket No. 2002), which claimed no ownership interest in the Tropicana
Trademarks. In confirming the OpCo and LandCo Plans, the Court approved post-
petition liens on the Tropicana Trademarks (in favor of the Exit Facility Agent on behalf
of the OpCo Exit Facility Lenders), valuations of the OpCo Debtors’ estate (which
included the Tropicana Trademarks), valuations of the LandCo Debtors’ estate (which
did not include the Tropicana Trademarks), and distributions to creditors based on those
valuations. The Confirmation Order also provided that, upon the effective date of the
OpCo Plan, the Tropicana Trademarks were to be assigned to a reorganized OpCo Debtor
and pledged as collateral to the OpCo Exit Facility Lenders.6 Thereafter, literally
hundreds of corporate transactions implementing or relating to the OpCo Plan took place
in reliance on the validity of the liens and underlying ownership interests established by
the Confirmation Order. For example, the OpCo Exit Facility Lenders loaned $150
5 The Reorganized LandCo Debtors include: Tropicana Las Vegas Hotel and Casino, Inc., Tropicana Las Vegas Intermediate Holdings Inc., Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc., and Hotel Ramada of Nevada, LLC.
6 The Tropicana Trademarks were subsequently assigned, subject to the pledge, to New Tropicana Holdings.
BAY:01608040v1
7
million to the Reorganized OpCo Debtors in reliance on the inclusion of the Tropicana
Trademarks in the collateral securing the OpCo Exit Facility.
9. The Defendants (or their owners, the LandCo Lenders), or any other party
in interest, could have challenged the liens and the corresponding ownership interests
confirmed in the Cash Collateral Order and the Confirmation Order before the end of the
applicable challenge period in this Court, and certainly before the OpCo Plan effective
date. The LandCo Lenders and the Defendants opted to do neither – had they done so,
and had this Court ruled in their favor, significant value would have been shifted from the
OpCo Debtors to the LandCo Debtors, and the plans of reorganization in these cases
would have been much different. Instead, acting at the direction of the former LandCo
Lenders, the Defendants have now chosen to attack collaterally this Court’s prior orders
in a different forum, in the Nevada Action.
10. In seeking relief from the automatic stay in connection with the Nevada
Action, Defendants told this Court in their motion papers and at the hearing on the
motion that they were not seeking “any property” from New Tropicana’s predecessors in
the Nevada Action and that they were not seeking to limit the Reorganized OpCo
Debtors’ continued use of the Tropicana Trademarks or the expansion of that use
anywhere in the world other than Las Vegas. Defendants made this representation
knowing that litigating ownership issues in the Nevada Action would completely
undermine the foundation of the Debtors’ reorganizations, including: (a) the core
valuations and distributions in the OpCo and LandCo Plans; (b) the confirmed ownership
interest in the Tropicana Trademarks held by New Tropicana Holdings; and (c) the valid
and perfected security liens on the Tropicana Trademarks relied upon by the OpCo Exit
BAY:01608040v1
8
Facility Lenders in loaning $150 million in exit financing to the Reorganized OpCo
Debtors.7 This Court granted relief from the automatic stay in reliance on Defendants’
assurances, explaining that “there is no dispute that one of the OpCo entities is the record
owner of the intellectual property in dispute as a matter of record.” (Tr., pp 52-53.) The
Defendants, however, did not keep acting in accordance with their own representation.
11. Although the Defendants’ original complaint in the Nevada Action merely
sought a right to use the Tropicana Trademarks without any control by or payment to the
OpCo Debtors, Defendants have since radically changed their goals in that case.
Specifically, in a recent summary judgment motion, Defendants requested a declaration
that they actually owned the Tropicana Trademarks. This is not a small change – the
Tropicana Trademarks had an appraised value of almost $200 million in 2007 – and is a
blatant end run around this Court’s valid and binding orders in the bankruptcy, upon
which everyone has relied. Indeed, if the Defendants actually owned the Tropicana
Trademarks – which they do not – then this would create an immediate event of default
under the OpCo Exit Facility to the detriment of the Reorganized OpCo Debtors.
12. Incredibly, Defendants did not alert the Nevada state court that the issue of
ownership had already been determined by prior orders of this Court. In fact,
Defendants actually represented to the Nevada state court during oral argument on the
7 The Reorganized OpCo Debtors include: Aztar Indiana Gaming Company, LLC, Aztar Riverboat Holding Company, LLC, Catfish Queen Partnership in Commendam, Centroplex Centre Convention Hotel, L.L.C., Columbia Properties Laughlin, LLC, Columbia Properties Tahoe, LLC, Columbia Properties Vicksburg, LLC, CP Laughlin Realty, LLC, CP St. Louis Acquisition, LLC, CP St. Louis Casino, LLC, Greenville Riverboat, LLC, JMBS Casino, LLC, New Jazz Enterprises, L.L.C., New St. Louis Riverboat, LLC, New Tropicana Holdings, Inc., New Tropicana OpCo Inc., Tahoe Horizon, LLC, Tropicana Atlantic City Corp., Tropicana AC Sub Corp., Tropicana Entertainment Inc. and Tropicana Express, LLC.
BAY:01608040v1
9
summary judgment motion on May 12, 2010 that the question of ownership of the
Tropicana Trademarks had been “punted” to the Nevada Court to adjudicate, with the
“express permission of the United States Bankruptcy Court, having jurisdiction over both
sides of the bankruptcy.” (Tr. of Nevada Court Hearing on Summary Judgment Apr. 15,
2010, p. 9:9-14) That is simply not true, and was intentionally misleading.
13. Despite the Defendants’ misrepresentations to the Nevada Court, their
summary judgment motion in the Nevada Action was denied.8 At the oral argument on
the motion, and in the findings of fact, the Nevada Court indicated that direction was
needed from this Court concerning the issue of ownership. In particular, as a predicate to
Defendants’ claim in the Nevada Action, the LandCo Debtors submitted supplemental
bankruptcy schedules (months after the effective date of the LandCo Plan) to include the
1980 Trade Name Agreement that purportedly gave rise to Defendants’ new claim for
ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks. Reluctant to decide whether the belated
amended bankruptcy schedules are valid (they are not), the Nevada Court stated that it
“assume[d] that somebody will ask the Bankruptcy Court judge to do something.” (Tr. of
Nevada Court Hearing on Summary Judgment Apr. 15, 2010 at 101.) The Nevada state
court also sought further guidance on the treatment of the 1980 Trade Name Agreement,
stating that “[w]hether the Bankruptcy Court has ruled on the status of the reversionary
interest [in that agreement] is unclear.” (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Jun. 9,
2010, ¶ 77.)
8 The court also denied the cross-motion for summary judgment by the defendants.
BAY:01608040v1
10
14. To provide the requested guidance to the Nevada Court, this Court need
only look to the Cash Collateral Order and the Confirmation Order. These orders are
dispositive.
15. The Cash Collateral Order and Confirmation Order also are consistent
with decades of corporate history and public filings. A list (by no means exhaustive) of
the overwhelming historical evidence establishing the ownership of the Tropicana
Trademarks includes:
• Thirty years of public federal trademark registrations indicated to the world that various OpCo Debtors (typically the parent company before the bankruptcy) owned the Tropicana Trademarks through an unbroken recorded chain of title.
• In 1989, the LandCo Debtors that were signatories to the 1980 Trade Name Agreement signed an assignment that confirmed that their parent company, Aztar Corporation (“Aztar,” an OpCo Debtor), owned the Tropicana Trademarks.
• In 2002, Aztar expressly extinguished any contingent reversionary interest that may have existed under the 1980 Trade Name Agreement following a transaction in 2002, in which it became the beneficial owner of 100% of the equity in the business entity that held that alleged interest.
• In 2002, Aztar’s extinguishment of any reversionary interest was expressly memorialized in public filings with the SEC, which stated that Aztar “acquired unrestricted rights to the [Tropicana] name.” Aztar, Form 10-K (Mar. 7, 2002) (Ex. A.) Aztar’s subsequent Form 10-K filings were consistent, reciting Aztar’s sole and unrestricted ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks.
• In 2004, Aztar’s ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks was reconfirmed, when it pledged the Tropicana Trademarks as collateral to Bank of America as part of a $ 675 million credit facility – with the knowledge and consent of various predecessors of Defendant Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc.
• In 2007, when Wimar Tahoe (later renamed Tropicana Entertainment, LLC) acquired all of the outstanding stock of Aztar for over $2.1 billion, Aztar represented that it (not a LandCo company) owned the Tropicana Trademarks and subsequently transferred record title to Tropicana Entertainment, LLC (an OpCo Debtor), thereby extinguishing any and all unrecorded interests, including those LandCo now claims to possess.
BAY:01608040v1
11
• In 2007, the OpCo Debtors and the LandCo Debtors were required to identify and pledge any and all U.S. trademark registrations that they owned as collateral for the OpCo Credit Facility and the LandCo Credit Facility. Consistent with decades of public representations, the OpCo Debtors’ schedules in connection with that loan identified Aztar as the owner of the Tropicana Trademarks. The LandCo Debtors did not identify any ownership interest in the Tropicana Trademarks in connection with the LandCo Credit Facility issued at the same time.
• In July 2008, the LandCo and OpCo Debtors each prepared pre-confirmation schedules that listed their respective assets and liabilities. Tropicana Entertainment, LLC, listed the Tropicana Trademarks as assets. No LandCo Debtor included the Tropicana Trademarks in its list of assets.
16. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful collateral attack on this Court’s prior
orders, and the Nevada state court’s need for clarity on the impact of those orders,
Plaintiffs are compelled to file this action to enforce this Court’s prior orders and to seek
a declaratory judgment that: (1) New Tropicana Holdings, Inc. is the sole owner of the
Tropicana Trademarks (as the Tropicana Trademarks were property of Tropicana
Entertainment, LLC’s estate and collateral for the OpCo Lenders); (2) Icahn Agency
Services LLC has a valid and perfected security interest in the Tropicana Trademarks for
the benefit of the OpCo Exit Facility Lenders (regardless of who owns the Tropicana
Trademarks); (3) the LandCo Debtors’ supplemental bankruptcy schedules are null and
void; and (4) the Defendants in the Nevada Action violated the automatic stay to the
extent they sought to acquire ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks, as opposed to
merely the right to use those marks in connection with their Las Vegas operations.
Plaintiffs also seek a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants or their affiliates from
litigating any alleged ownership interests in the Tropicana Trademarks in the Nevada
Action, or in any other proceeding in any jurisdiction.
BAY:01608040v1
12
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 157 and the Standing Order referring cases under the
Bankruptcy Code to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
dated July 23, 1984. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B)
and (O) because this action involves the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to enforce
the finality of its prior Orders and prevent belated collateral attacks on those Orders to the
detriment of debtors, creditors, and exit lenders.
18. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a) because this
action arises under the Bankruptcy Code, involves property of the OpCo Debtors’ estates,
and arises in and is related to the OpCo Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases.
THE PARTIES
19. Plaintiff New Tropicana is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in Clark County, Nevada, is the ultimate parent of the Reorganized OpCo
Debtors, and is the Borrower under the OpCo Exit Facility. It is the successor to
Tropicana Entertainment, Holdings LLC, which was the parent company of the LandCo
Debtors prior to the 2008 Bankruptcy. Tropicana Entertainment, LLC is named as a
defendant in the Nevada Action.
20. Plaintiff New Tropicana Holdings is a Delaware corporation with a
principal place of business in Clark County, Nevada. New Tropicana Holdings is a
wholly owned subsidiary of New Tropicana, a guarantor under the OpCo Exit Facility
and the owner of the Tropicana Trademarks.
21. Plaintiff Icahn Agency Services LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with a principal place of business in New York. Icahn Agency Services LLC is
BAY:01608040v1
13
the sole agent entitled to enforce the rights of the OpCo Exit Facility Lenders under the
December 29, 2009 Exit Facility.
22. Plaintiff Icahn Partners LP is a Delaware limited partnership with a
principal place of business in New York. Plaintiff Icahn Partners LP was a lender under
the prepetition OpCo Credit Facility.
23. Plaintiff Icahn Partners Master Fund LP is a limited partnership organized
under the laws of the Cayman Islands with a principal place of business in the Cayman
Islands. Plaintiff Icahn Partners Master Fund LP was a lender under the prepetition
OpCo Credit Facility.
24. Plaintiff Icahn Partners Master Fund II LP is a limited partnership
organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands with a principal place of business in the
Cayman Islands. Plaintiff Icahn Partners Master Fund II LP was a lender under the
prepetition OpCo Credit Facility.
25. Plaintiff Icahn Partners Master Fund III LP is a limited partnership
organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands with a principal place of business in the
Cayman Islands. Plaintiff Icahn Partners Master Fund III LP was a lender under the
prepetition OpCo Credit Facility.
26. Defendant Hotel Ramada of Nevada, LLC is a Nevada limited liability
company with a principal place of business in Clark County, Nevada. Hotel Ramada of
Nevada, LLC is the successor to Hotel Ramada of Nevada, Corp. (“Hotel Ramada of
Nevada”), a plaintiff in the Nevada Action.
27. Defendant Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with a
principal place of business in Clark County, Nevada. Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc. was
BAY:01608040v1
14
formed in 2009, and is controlled by Onex – which, after the filing of these Chapter 11
cases, became the largest secured lender under the LandCo Credit Facility. Tropicana
Las Vegas, Inc. is a plaintiff in the Nevada Action.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
28. Consistent with the Court’s Cash Collateral Order and Confirmation
Order, New Tropicana Holdings’ sole and exclusive ownership of the Tropicana
Trademarks can be traced through a chain of agreements, public registrations, and public
disclosures reflecting Defendants’ and their predecessors’ agreement and participation in
recognition of ownership.
The Tropicana Las Vegas
29. The Tropicana Las Vegas opened its doors for business in 1957. Hotel
Conquistador, Inc. (“Conquistador”) originally operated the Tropicana Las Vegas on land
owned by the Jaffe family (the “Jaffe Group”). Although the Jaffe Group did not claim
any ownership rights in the “Tropicana” name in the 1972 lease between Conquistador
(as lessee) and the Jaffe Group (as lessor), the lease required Conquistador to transfer to
the Jaffe Group whatever right it had, if any, in the “Tropicana” name after the
termination of the lease. In 1977, the Jaffe Group and Edward and Fred Doumani (the
“Doumanis”) formed a partnership called Tropicana Enterprises which succeeded the
Jaffe Group as the lessor to Conquistador. The relevant corporate relation can be
illustrated as follows:
BAY:01608040v1
15
30. On June 26, 1979, Hotel Ramada of Nevada acquired from Conquistador
the lease of the Tropicana Las Vegas and the right to use the “Tropicana” name. Hotel
Ramada of Nevada was a subsidiary of Ramada Inns, Inc., a predecessor to an OpCo
Debtor. On July 25, 1979, the Doumanis sold their 50% interest in Tropicana Enterprises
to Adamar of Nevada Inc. (“Adamar of Nevada”), a subsidiary of Ramada Inns, Inc. As
a result, the Jaffe Group owned 50% of Tropicana Enterprises and Adamar of Nevada
owned the other 50%. The relevant corporate relationship can be illustrated as follows:
BAY:01608040v1
16
Thus, the Jaffe Group’s 50% interest in Tropicana Enterprises was the only outside
interest in the Tropicana Las Vegas that was not held directly or indirectly through a
subsidiary by Ramada Inns, Inc., which subsequently became known as Ramada, Inc.
1980 Trade Name Agreement
31. On or about September 1, 1980, Tropicana Enterprises entered into the
1980 Trade Name Agreement with Ramada Inns, Inc., the Jaffe Group, Hotel Ramada of
Nevada, and Adamar of New Jersey, Inc (another wholly owned subsidiary of Ramada
Inns, Inc.). This agreement expressly authorized Ramada Inns, Inc. to file federal
trademark registrations in its name for the “TROPICANA” mark. As a matter of
trademark law, registration may only be made in the name of the owner of the mark.
Those registrations were filed, as set forth below.
32. The 1980 Trade Name Agreement also provided a limited contingent
assignment right to benefit Tropicana Enterprises in the event that the hotel lease was
terminated prior to the extinguishment of that right. Since Tropicana Enterprises was
owned 50% by Adamar of Nevada (a wholly owned subsidiary of Ramada Inns, Inc.), the
contingent assignment right was effectively for the benefit of the holders of the only
outside ownership interest, the Jaffe Group. As described more fully below, the Jaffe
Group’s contingent assignment right was extinguished in 2002, when Aztar purchased the
Jaffe Group’s interest in Tropicana Enterprises. This brought the operation of the
Tropicana Las Vegas and the site of those operations under common ownership for the
first time since the opening of the Tropicana Las Vegas in 1957.
Ramada Inns, Inc. Registers the “TROP” Mark in 1982
33. On August 16, 1982, Ramada Inns, Inc. began using the mark “TROP” in
connection with casino services and hotel and restaurant services in Atlantic City, New
BAY:01608040v1
17
Jersey. On or about November 17, 1982, Ramada Inns, Inc. filed an application for
federal registration of TROP as a service mark for hotel and restaurant and casino
services. On March 13, 1984, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
issued Registration Number 1,270,320 (the “’320 Registration”) to Ramada Inns, Inc. as
the owner of the mark.
34. Ramada Inns, Inc. changed its name to Ramada, Inc. and on June 24,
1986, Ramada Inns, Inc. validly assigned its interest in the ’320 Registration to Ramada,
Inc. This assignment was recorded with the USPTO on July 19, 1986. The ’320
Registration remains valid today, and is currently held by New Tropicana Holdings.
35. Icahn Agency Services LLC has a recorded security interest in the ’320
Registration.
The 1988 and 1989 Registrations of the “TROPICANA” Trademark
36. On July 15, 1988, Ramada, Inc. filed an application to register
“TROPICANA” as a service mark.9 On March 14, 1989, Registration Number 1,530,186
(the “’186 Registration”) was issued to Ramada Inc. for use of “TROPICANA” mark in
connection with entertainment and hotel and restaurant services. The ’186 Registration
remains valid today, and is currently held by New Tropicana Holdings.
37. Icahn Agency Services LLC has a recorded security interest in the ’186
Registration.
9 Ramada Inns, Inc. previously filed an application for the federal registration of TROPICANA as a mark for hotel services and casino services on September 22, 1980. On April 6, 1982, Ramada Inns, Inc. was issued Registration Number 1,193,337 for use of “TROPICANA” as a service mark in casino and hotel services. This registration lapsed because it was not renewed.
BAY:01608040v1
18
38. On April 28, 1989, Ramada, Inc. filed an additional application for
“TROPICANA” as a service mark for casino services. On December 19, 1989,
Registration Number 1,572,514 (the “’514 Registration”) was issued to Ramada Inc. for
use of the TROPICANA service mark for casino services. The ’514 Registration remains
valid today, and is currently held by New Tropicana Holdings.
39. Icahn Agency Services LLC has a recorded security interest in the ’514
Registration.
Ramada Inc. Spins off its Gaming Assets to the Newly-Formed Aztar Corporation
40. In 1989, Ramada, Inc. decided to spin off its gaming assets and properties.
To effect the spin-off all of those assets and properties were transferred into a newly
formed subsidiary, Aztar. As part of the transfers, Ramada Inc. assigned the Tropicana
Trademarks to Aztar on July 5, 1989. The assignment included the ’320 Registration, the
’186 Registration, and the then pending application for the ’514 Registration. Aztar
recorded this assignment with the USPTO on July 10, 1989. The shares of Aztar were
subsequently distributed to Ramada, Inc’s public shareholders.
41. On December 20, 1989, Aztar, Ramada Inc., Hotel Ramada of Nevada,
Adamar of New Jersey, Inc., Tropicana Enterprises, the Jaffe Group, and TROP C.C.
entered into a Trade Name Agreement Assignment, Guaranty, and Agreement (the “1989
Agreement”).
42. Under the 1989 Agreement, Ramada assigned all of its rights under the
1980 Trade Name Agreement to Aztar and Ramada had the obligation to “transfer to
Aztar any and all trademark . . . registrations with respect to the name ‘Tropicana’ issued
or standing in the name of Ramada or any of its affiliates . . . .” The 1989 Agreement
was signed by all of the LandCo signatories to the 1980 Trade Name Agreement and
BAY:01608040v1
19
members of the Jaffe Group. All of these entities confirmed the validity of the
assignment of the ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks to Aztar by executing the 1989
Agreement.
Aztar Buys the Jaffe Group’s Remaining Interest; Extinguishes Contingent
Assignment Rights
43. In January of 2002, Adamar of Nevada (then a wholly-owned Aztar
subsidiary) and the Jaffe Group owned equal partnership interests in Tropicana
Enterprises – the lessor of the site of the Tropicana Las Vegas. The relevant corporate
relationship can be illustrated as follows:
44. On February 1, 2002, Aztar caused Adamar of Nevada to buy the Jaffe
Group’s 50% interest in Tropicana Enterprises (the “Jaffe Acquisition”). As a result,
Aztar became the beneficial owner of 100% of the equity interests in Tropicana
Enterprises and the operation of the Tropicana Las Vegas and the site of those operations
BAY:01608040v1
20
were now under common ownership for the first time since the opening of Tropicana Las
Vegas in 1957. The relevant corporate relationship can be illustrated as follows:
45. By purchasing the remaining 50% interest held by the Jaffe Group, Aztar
effectively rendered meaningless any contingent assignment right that Tropicana
Enterprises, or any of its successors, could have had in the Tropicana Trademarks,
because the grantor and grantee of the contingent assignment right were now one entity
under common ownership and management.
46. The context of this transaction is important. When the Jaffe Group had an
interest in Tropicana Enterprises, there was a reason for the Jaffe Group to have some
ability to prevent Aztar from using the Tropicana name elsewhere (either in competition
or in ways that might dilute the value of the brand) if Aztar were no longer operating the
Tropicana Las Vegas. When the 2002 Transaction brought the lessor and the lessee
under common ownership under the Aztar umbrella, however, there was no longer any
BAY:01608040v1
21
reason for the contingent assignment right to continue – which is precisely why it was
extinguished.
47. Aztar’s extinguishment of the contingent assignment right was expressly
memorialized in public filings with the SEC. For example, Aztar’s 2001 Form 10-K
(dated Mar. 7, 2002) – and filed one week after the Jaffe Acquisition – stated that on
“February 28, 2002, we [Aztar] completed the purchase of the other 50% partnership
interest in Tropicana Enterprises that we [Aztar] did not own and acquired unrestricted
rights to the [Tropicana] name.” Aztar, Form 10-K (Mar. 7, 2002) (Ex. A.) Aztar’s
subsequent Form 10-K filings were consistent, reciting Aztar’s sole and unrestricted
ownership of the Tropicana trademark. See Aztar, Form 10-K (Mar. 1, 2004) (Ex. B.);
Aztar, Form 10-K (Feb. 28, 2005) (Ex. C.); see also Aztar, Form 10-K (Feb. 27, 2003)
(Ex. D.) (restating above quoted language and further explaining, “As part of the [Jaffe]
[A]cquisition, the Company acquired the 50% interest in the Tropicana trademark, an
intangible asset with an indefinite life, that it did not already own as part of its interest in
the partnership. . . .”) Unrestricted ownership means complete ownership with no third-
party right to assignment based on any condition. The SEC filings belie any allegation by
Defendants that the contingent assignment right or the 1980 Trade Name Agreement that
reflected that interest was hidden from them. Rather, this further confirms what all
parties understood for decades and what this Court has already decided – that New
Tropicana Holdings and its OpCo Debtor predecessors (such as Tropicana Entertainment,
LLC and Aztar before it) owned the Tropicana Trademarks.
The 2004 Amended and Restated Trademark and Collateral Agreement
48. In 2004, Aztar, as borrower, entered into an Amended and Restated
Trademark and Collateral Agreement with Bank of America as the administrative agent.
BAY:01608040v1
22
(Ex. E.) This agreement, too, stated that Aztar owned the Tropicana Trademarks.
Significantly, except for the Jaffe Group (which no longer held an interest in any portion
of the enterprise), the 2004 Collateral Agreement was signed by all of the signatories to
the 1980 Trade Name Agreement, or their successors, thus confirming everybody’s
respective knowledge and agreement that Aztar was, in fact, the sole owner of the
Tropicana Trademarks.
Aztar and the Tropicana Trademarks are Sold for $2.1 Billion Dollars
49. On May 19, 2006, Wimar Tahoe Corporation purchased Aztar for $2.1
billion. The purchase transaction was structured so that Aztar became a subsidiary of
Wimar OpCo LLC (“Wimar OpCo”), and Wimar OpCo was intended to be the holding
company for the acquired assets. Wimar OpCo was later renamed Tropicana
Entertainment, LLC.
50. Aztar represented to Wimar Tahoe Corporation that it owned the
Tropicana Trademarks.
51. The $2.1 billion purchase of Aztar was financed through two separate
credit facilities: the OpCo Credit Facility and the LandCo Credit Facility. The OpCo
Credit Facility was comprised of a $1.53 billion secured term loan and a $180 million
secured revolver.
52. In connection with the closing of the OpCo Credit Facility, the OpCo
Debtors pledged as collateral any and all trademark assets they owned as set forth in
schedules of trademark assets. The OpCo Credit Facility schedules specifically identified
Aztar as the owner of the Tropicana Trademarks. As the legal owner of the Tropicana
Trademarks, Aztar validly pledged the Tropicana Trademarks as security to the OpCo
Lenders. Subsequently, on September 12, 2007, Aztar executed a written assignment of
BAY:01608040v1
23
its interest in the Tropicana Trademarks to Tropicana Entertainment, LLC, an assignment
that was promptly and validly recorded with the USPTO on September 13, 2007.
53. Tropicana Entertainment, LLC’s acquisition of record title in this fashion
extinguished all prior unrecorded interests purportedly held by any LandCo entity and
perfected Tropicana Entertainment, LLC’s ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks.
Tropicana Entertainment, LLC became the pledgor of the Tropicana Trademarks under
the OpCo Credit Facility.
54. In connection with the closing of the LandCo Credit Facility, the LandCo
Debtors were also required to identify all of the U.S. trademarks that they owned. They
did not identify any ownership or contingent interest in the Tropicana Trademarks.
55. The contents of the two schedules disclosing the respective pledges of the
OpCo and LandCo Debtors underscored what everyone believed concerning the
Tropicana Trademarks – that they were then owned by Aztar. All of the extensions of
credit under the OpCo Facility and the LandCo Facility and the actions and credit
decisions taken by the OpCo Lenders and LandCo Lenders were in reliance on that
understanding.
The Bankruptcy, and May 30, 2008 Cash Collateral Order
56. Tropicana Entertainment, LLC and most of its affiliates and subsidiaries,
filed for bankruptcy on May 5, 2008 in this Court.
57. On May 30, 2008, this Court entered the Cash Collateral Order. The
Order provided that the Liens under the OpCo Credit Facility were “valid, binding,
perfected, enforceable, first priority liens on the personal and real property described in
the” OpCo Credit Facility. (¶ D(4); see ¶ 37(c)(ii).) The OpCo Credit Facility schedule
BAY:01608040v1
24
shows Tropicana Entertainment, LLC’s ownership interest in and specifically lists the
Tropicana Trademarks as collateral.
58. Given that a valid ownership interest is a prerequisite for a valid lien on
title, the Cash Collateral Order confirms that Tropicana Trademarks were owned by
Tropicana Entertainment, LLC.
59. The Cash Collateral Order contained a 90-day challenge period for any
party-in-interest to investigate and challenge the validity of the OpCo Lenders’ liens.10
At no time during the challenge period did any party – including Onex and other LandCo
Lenders – challenge any of the OpCo Lenders’ liens. Indeed, the LandCo Lenders did
not even take any discovery concerning the liens during the challenge period.
60. The Cash Collateral Order expressly stated that no “grant of security under
this [Cash Collateral] [O]rder or the [DIP financing documents] . . . shall be stayed,
restrained, voidable or recoverable . . . , or subject to any defense, reduction, setoff,
recoupment or counterclaim” after the challenge period. (¶ 5.)
61. In addition, the LandCo and OpCo Debtors waived and released the OpCo
agent and OpCo Lenders from any and all claims arising out of the OpCo Credit Facility,
including the extent, validity, priority and perfection of liens in the Tropicana
Trademarks. (Cash Collateral Order, ¶ 37(a).) This waiver and release is binding on the
Reorganized LandCo Debtors.
62. The Cash Collateral Order also provided that any other party-in-interest’s
claims against the OpCo Credit Facility agent and the OpCo Lenders would be forever
relinquished, released and waived after the expiration of the 90-day challenge period. (¶
10 That challenge period was extended by 33 days for the Unsecured Creditors Committee at its request while the committee investigated the OpCo Lenders’ liens.
BAY:01608040v1
25
37(b) and (c).) This waiver and release is binding on the LandCo Lenders, including
Onex, now the owners of the Reorganized LandCo Debtors.
63. The Cash Collateral Order is binding on the Debtors and their respective
successors and assigns. (¶ 30.) As such, the Cash Collateral Order is binding on the
Defendants as successors to LandCo Debtors.
The Debtors’ Schedules of Assets and Liabilities in July of 2008
64. On July 7, 2008, the OpCo and LandCo Debtors each filed separate
schedules of their assets and liabilities. Tropicana Entertainment, LLC filed schedules of
assets and liabilities that listed the Tropicana Trademarks as assets. (Ex. F.) The LandCo
Debtors’ schedules did not assert any interest, ownership or otherwise, in the Tropicana
Trademarks.
65. All parties relied upon the foregoing schedules of assets and liabilities. In
loaning $150 million to the OpCo Debtors, the OpCo Exit Facility Lenders relied upon
the Tropicana Trademarks as security for the OpCo Exit Facility. Without that valuable
property as security, the loan would have been far riskier, and the OpCo Exit Facility
Lenders would not have extended the funds necessary for the OpCo Debtors to
reorganize.
66. By contrast, the LandCo Lenders acquired interests in the $440 million
LandCo secured term loan under the LandCo Credit Facility without any reliance on the
Tropicana Trademarks as security – because all parties recognized that the LandCo
Debtors had no interest, ownership or otherwise, in the Tropicana Trademarks.
The Confirmation Order
67. Since there were insufficient assets to satisfy the secured obligations under
the LandCo Credit Facility and the OpCo Credit Facility, the decision was made to file
BAY:01608040v1
26
two separate plans of reorganization. The LandCo Plan concerned only the Tropicana
Las Vegas casino, while the OpCo Plan concerned all of the Debtors’ remaining casinos.
The OpCo and LandCo Plans provided that the secured OpCo and LandCo Lenders
would take an equity and management interest in the reorganized OpCo and LandCo
debtors, respectively, and that post-bankruptcy, the reorganized OpCo and LandCo
entities would operate as separate enterprises.
68. During the negotiations over the terms of the OpCo and LandCo plans, the
OpCo Debtors, consistent with their ownership rights, advised the LandCo Lenders (the
future owners of the Reorganized LandCo Debtors) that the Reorganized LandCo
Debtors would need to obtain a license from the OpCo Debtors to use the Tropicana
Trademarks after the plans became effective. The LandCo Lenders requested that the
OpCo Debtors provide them with a draft term sheet for such a license, but then balked at
the idea of paying any fees for use of the Tropicana Trademarks. The OpCo Debtors
rejected the LandCo Lenders’ request to use the Tropicana Trademarks for free, in
perpetuity, and without control of the trademarks by the Reorganized OpCo Debtors.
69. To move forward on the reorganization, the parties agreed to postpone the
dispute over whether the LandCo Debtors had to pay a royalty to use the Tropicana
Trademarks, and if so, at what rate, to a later time. Accordingly, the parties preserved the
status quo with respect to intellectual property in the Plans – recognizing that the OpCo
Debtors owned the Tropicana Trademarks but that the LandCo Debtors may or may not
have had a right to use the Tropicana Trademarks, and if so, could they use it without
BAY:01608040v1
27
paying a royalty.11 Nothing in the reservation of rights expanded the rights of the
LandCo Debtors to the Tropicana Trademarks, nor waived any rights the OpCo Debtors
or OpCo Lenders had to rely upon and enforce the various orders of this Court that were
and remain binding.
70. On May 5, 2009, this Court issued the Confirmation Order for the OpCo
Plan. The OpCo Plan went effective on March 8, 2010.
71. The Confirmation Order for the OpCo Plan approved and authorized the
execution of the OpCo Exit Facility, and held that the OpCo Exit Facility liens are “valid,
binding, perfected and enforceable liens and security interests in the real and personal
property described in the OpCo Exit Facility and its attendant documents.” The
Confirmation Order further stated that “the granting of such Liens, the making such loans
and other extensions of credit, and the execution and consummation of the OpCo Exit
Facility shall not be subject to avoidance, recharacterization, recovery, subordination,
attack, offset, counterclaim, defense or ‘claim’ (as such term is defined in the Bankruptcy
Code) of any kind under any Applicable Laws as of the Effective Date.” The
Confirmation Order effectively confirms the ownership by an OpCo Debtor of the
Tropicana Trademarks with no right in any LandCo Debtor to a conditional assignment.
11 (See OpCo Plan, Article XIII.Q; see also Tr. of Hearing on Motion for Relief from Stay Aug. 13, 2009, p. 40:10-11 (The Reorganized LandCo Debtors’ counsel stated that “[w]e seek a remedy for OpCo’s postpetition attempt to take away our right to use the name.”); Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc’s Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Relief from Stay, p. 1 (Docket No. 2290) (The Reorganized LandCo Debtors argued that “the OpCo Debtors . . . invented an alleged right to terminate Tropicana Las Vegas’ ongoing use of the [Tropicana] name and attempted to exploit that alleged right to extract royalties even though none had ever been paid before.”))
BAY:01608040v1
28
72. On May 5, 2009, the Court also issued a confirmation Order for the
LandCo Plan. The LandCo Plan went effective on July 1, 2009. (Docket No. 2203.) The
LandCo Plan did not claim any ownership interest in the Tropicana Trademarks.
73. The Reorganized LandCo Debtors never expected an ownership interest in
the Tropicana Trademarks. In fact, the OpCo Plan allocates significant value to the
Tropicana Trademarks.
The Nevada Action
74. On July 20, 2009, the Defendants filed the Nevada Action seeking a
declaration that the Defendants have a right to use the Tropicana Trademarks in
connection with the Las Vegas resort and casino property without control by or payment
to the OpCo Debtors.
75. In connection with the motion practice surrounding the lifting of the
automatic stay to permit the Nevada Action to proceed, the LandCo Debtors expressly
assured this Court that they were not seeking any ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks
in the Nevada Action. Counsel for Reorganized LandCo Debtors said “Tropicana Las
Vegas is not ‘contemplating postpetition activity’. . . . Tropicana Las Vegas is also not
challenging ‘ownership questions’ that were ‘plainly answered’ prepetition – it is seeking
to preserve longstanding rights” concerning the use of the Tropicana name without a
royalty. (Reply in Support of Motion for Relief from Stay, p. 5) (emphasis added.) This
was confirmed multiple times by counsel for the Reorganized LandCo Debtors on the
record at the hearing on the motion, who stated:
[T]he relief sought in that complaint is exceedingly simple, it’s nothing more then a declaration that Tropicana Las Vegas may continue to operate the Tropicana under the Tropicana name without interference by OpCo or payment to them. That’s it. There’s no request for damages, no
BAY:01608040v1
29
attempt to say what OpCo can or cannot do with the mark. No attempt to limit the rights that OpCo had as of the petition date. Just a straightforward request to preserve what we view as our pre-existing right to operate as we’ve always done.
. . . . [N]othing in the litigation asserts that the OpCo debtors don’t have the right to use the name on the properties that they’re using it now or even to develop new properties with it. All that we’re asking for is Las Vegas centric. We want to continue to use the property that’s located on the corner of Tropicana Avenue and the strip that’s been named the Tropicana ever since it was built. We want to just continue to do that.
(Tr. at 33 and 43.)
76. In permitting the Nevada Action to proceed, this Court relied upon the
representations by the Reorganized LandCo Debtors’ counsel. Specifically, the Court
lifted the stay after finding in its ruling that “there is no dispute that one of the OpCo
entities is the record owner of the intellectual property in dispute as a matter of record.”
(Tr. at. 52-53.)
77. The Nevada Action was removed to federal court. As part of the motion
to remand the case back to Nevada state court, the Defendants made even more
representations that they were not challenging ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks.
Specifically, the Defendants stated in their opening brief:
[Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc. and Hotel Ramada of Nevada] seek a declaration, under Nevada Revised Statute 30.101, that they have a right to use the name they have been using in Las Vegas since 1957. The Complaint does not dispute [Tropicana Entertainment, LLC and Aztar’s] trademark
rights, and/or their right to use the “Tropicana” name.
(Motion to Remand Aug. 25, 2009, p. 4) (emphasis added.) And yet again in their reply
brief, Defendants stated that:
BAY:01608040v1
30
The Complaint contains no allegations regarding [Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc. and Hotel Ramada of Nevada’s] rights vis-à-vis the specific federal registrations trumpeted by [Tropicana Entertainment, LLC and Aztar] in their Opposition; it alleges only that [Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc. and Hotel Ramada of Nevada] have a right to use the Tropicana name based on [Nevada] state law contract
principles and estoppel.
(Reply in Support of Motion to Remand Sept. 23, 2009, p. 5) (emphasis added.)
The LandCo Debtors File Invalid Supplemental Schedules
78. On November 18, 2009, certain LandCo Debtors filed supplemental
schedules of assets and executory contracts – long after the 30-day deadline provided in
the LandCo Plan confirmation order. These schedules – filed some 18 months after the
Cash Collateral Order, 6 months after the Confirmation Order, and 4 months after the
LandCo Plan’s Effective Date – listed for the very first time a property interest in the
“name ‘Tropicana’ and the goodwill of the business symbolized by and associated with
the name ‘Tropicana.’” (Ex. G.) The supplemental schedules do not assert any interest
in the “Trop” name. The supplemental schedules also listed the 1980 Trade Name
Agreement as an executory contract. (Exs. G, H and I.)
BAY:01608040v1
31
Tropicana Las Vegas Seeks Ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks
79. On January 8, 2010, Tropicana Las Vegas moved for summary judgment
in the Nevada Action. Even though the complaint had merely concerned the dispute over
the use of Tropicana name without a fee – and there had been multiple representations
that Defendants would not seek ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks – the summary
judgment motion requested a declaration that the Reorganized LandCo Debtors owned
the Tropicana Trademarks.
80. Subsequently, the Defendants confirmed their intentions to litigate
ownership, stating:
[O]wnership of the Tropicana name is undoubtedly vested
in Plaintiff Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc., as the Court will
shortly determine. If there were no Interim Period provision protecting their use, Defendants have been infringing and will be subject to damages.
. . . .
Once the Interim Period ends on May 7, 2010, if Defendants continue to use the name Tropicana, Plaintiffs will then be entitled to file a new Complaint seeking damages for trademark infringement based on their history of use and ownership and the historical agreements–documents that conclusively establish that Plaintiffs alone own the trademark rights.
(Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim in Nevada Action, pp. 3 n.1 and 8)
(emphasis added.)
81. The request for a declaration of ownership from the Nevada Court
effectively amounted to a request for an improper sub rosa plan modification.
Defendants failed to advise the Nevada Court that the issue of ownership had already
been resolved both prepetition and post-petition by this Court in connection with the
BAY:01608040v1
32
Cash Collateral Order and then again in the confirmation orders finalizing the
reorganizations, valuations and distributions under the Plans. Defendants also flatly
misrepresented to the Nevada Court during oral argument on the summary judgment
motion on May 12, 2010 that the question of ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks had
been “punted” to the Nevada Court to adjudicate, with the “express permission of the
United States Bankruptcy Court, having jurisdiction over both sides of the bankruptcy.”
(Tr. of Nevada Court Hearing on Summary Judgment Apr. 15, 2010 at 9:9-14.)
82. The Nevada Court denied the Reorganized LandCo Debtors’ motion for
summary judgment, and indicated that it needed direction from this Court. Reluctant to
address the legal status of the LandCo Debtors’ supplemental bankruptcy schedules that
purported to add a property interest in the Tropicana Trademarks, the Nevada Court
stated at the May 12, 2010 oral argument that it “assume[d] that somebody will ask the
Bankruptcy Court judge to do something.” (Tr. of Nevada Court Hearing on Summary
Judgment Apr. 15, 2010 at 101:20-21.) The Nevada Court further underscored the need
for this Court’s guidance on the validity and effect of the 1980 Trade Name Agreement,
finding that that “[w]hether the Bankruptcy Court has ruled on the status of the
reversionary interest is unclear.” (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Jun. 9, 2010,
¶ 77.)
83. This Court should not countenance the Defendants’ attempts to
circumvent this Court’s prior Orders. This Court has already determined that – as all
parties have understood for many years – the ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks
resided with an OpCo Debtor (now with one of the Reorganized OpCo Debtors). Had the
Defendants (or their owners, the former LandCo Lenders) wished to litigate that issue,
BAY:01608040v1
33
they had multiple opportunities to do so during the bankruptcy proceedings. They failed
to do so. The Nevada Action is not the proper forum to raise that issue, after the fact.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Judgment that the Tropicana Trademarks were property of the OpCo
Debtors’ Estate under Section 541(a) of the Bankruptcy Code)
84. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Complaint as if fully restated herein.
85. As a result of the Defendants’ improper attempt to litigate ownership
issues in the Nevada Action, an actual controversy exists concerning the validity and
enforceability of the factual findings in the Court’s Cash Collateral Order and
Confirmation Order and the underlying ownership issues subsumed therein.
86. A declaration from this Court enforcing its prior Cash Collateral Order
and Confirmation Order and declaring that the Tropicana Trademarks were property of
the Tropicana Entertainment, LLC’s estate under Section 541(a) of the Bankruptcy Code,
and are now validly owned by New Tropicana Holdings, will promote a resolution of this
controversy and prevent an impermissible sub rosa plan modification. Additionally, the
Defendants’ collateral attack on this Court’s prior orders would cause a default under the
Exit Facility Credit Agreement if the Nevada state court were to find that the Tropicana
Trademarks are not the property of New Tropicana Holdings. That result, in addition to
invalidating this Court's finding in the Confirmation Order that the Exit Facility
Agent has a valid and perfected security interest in the Tropicana Trademarks, might lead
to the acceleration of the Exit Credit Facility and the insolvency of the Reorganized
OpCo Debtors.
BAY:01608040v1
34
87. Since the commencement of this bankruptcy, the Tropicana Trademarks
were the property of Tropicana Entertainment, LLC’s bankruptcy estate and not subject
to any contingent assignment right. This fact was confirmed by the Cash Collateral
Order and the Confirmation Order. Further, the Cash Collateral Order confirmed that the
OpCo Lenders had a valid and perfected security interest in the Tropicana Trademarks.
In implementing the OpCo Plan, the Tropicana Trademarks were conveyed to Tahoe
Horizon LLC which, in turn, conveyed them to New Tropicana Holdings.
88. Therefore, the Court should declare that the Tropicana Trademarks were
property of the Tropicana Entertainment, LLC’s estate under Section 541(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code, that the prepetition OpCo Lenders had a valid lien in the Tropicana
Trademarks that they released in exchange for the Plan distributions, and that the
Tropicana Trademarks are now validly owned by New Tropicana Holdings.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Judgment that the Exit Facility Agent Has a Valid and Perfected
Security Interest for the Benefit of the OpCo Exit Facility Lenders in the Tropicana
Trademarks)
89. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Complaint as if fully restated herein.
90. An actual controversy exists concerning whether the Exit Facility Agent
has a valid and perfected security interest in the Tropicana Trademarks for the benefit of
the OpCo Exit Facility Lenders.
91. A declaration from this Court enforcing its prior Cash Collateral Order
and Confirmation Order and declaring that OpCo Exit Facility Lenders have a valid and
perfected security interest in the Tropicana Trademarks will promote a resolution of this
controversy.
BAY:01608040v1
35
92. The Tropicana Trademarks were the property of Tropicana Entertainment,
LLC’s bankruptcy estate that was validly pledged to the OpCo Exit Facility Lenders
pursuant to the OpCo Plan. The Court’s Confirmation Order confirms this.
93. Therefore, the Court should declare that the Exit Facility Agent has a valid
and perfected security interest in the Tropicana Trademarks for the benefit of the OpCo
Exit Facility Lenders.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Judgment that LandCo’s Supplemental Bankruptcy Schedules are
Null and Void)
94. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Complaint as if fully restated herein.
95. An actual controversy exists concerning whether the LandCo’s
supplemental schedules are proper.
96. A declaration from this Court enforcing its prior Cash Collateral Order
and Confirmation Order and declaring that the LandCo’s supplemental schedules are null
and void will promote a resolution of this controversy.
97. The LandCo Debtors submitted the supplemental schedules to this Court
in November of 2009 – four months after the LandCo Plan Confirmation Date and in
contravention of the express language of the reservation of rights provisions in both the
LandCo and OpCo Plans. The supplemental schedules are therefore untimely and
prejudicial.
98. Therefore, the Court should declare that the LandCo’s Supplemental
Bankruptcy Schedules are null and void.
BAY:01608040v1
36
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Judgment that the Nevada Action Violated the Automatic Stay and is
Therefore Void)
99. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Complaint as if fully restated herein.
100. An actual controversy exists concerning whether the Nevada Action is a
proper forum for litigating trademark ownership issues.
101. A declaration from this Court that Defendants violated the automatic stay
(which was in effect until the OpCo Plan’s March 8, 2010 Effective Date) by raising
trademark ownership issues in the Nevada Action before the OpCo Plan Effective Date,
will promote a resolution of this controversy.
102. The Defendants repeatedly represented to this Court that only permissive
use issues would be litigated in the Nevada Action. Despite their representations, the
Defendants willfully raised trademark ownership issues in the Nevada Action before the
OpCo Plan’s March 8, 2010 Effective Date.
103. Therefore, the Court should declare that, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §
362(a)(1) and (3), the Nevada Action is void and without effect, to the extent it purports
to address trademark ownership issues.
104. Furthermore, the Court should enjoin the Defendants from litigating
ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks in the Nevada Action or in any other forum.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Contempt of the Confirmation Order)
105. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Complaint as if fully restated herein.
BAY:01608040v1
37
106. The OpCo Plan provides that the automatic stay remained in effect until
the March 8, 2010 Effective Date.
107. The Confirmation Order confirmed the validity of this provision in the
OpCo Plan.
108. By willfully and intentionally asserting ownership over the Tropicana
Trademarks, despite numerous representations to the Court to the contrary, Defendants
have acted in contempt of the Confirmation Order.
109. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek the maximum penalty or sanction deemed
appropriate by the Court, including compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and
expenses.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Enjoining the Defendants Under the Discharge and Injunctive Provisions of the
OpCo Plan as Confirmed by the Confirmation Order)
110. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Complaint as if fully restated herein.
111. The Defendants’ litigation of trademark ownership rights in the Nevada
Action violated the discharge and injunctive provisions of the OpCo Plan.
112. These provisions were confirmed by the Confirmation Order.
113. Accordingly, pursuant to the OpCo Plan as confirmed by the Confirmation
Order, the Court should enjoin the Defendants from litigating the ownership of the
Tropicana Trademarks in the Nevada Action or in any other forum.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Injunctive Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7065)
114. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Complaint as if fully restated herein.
BAY:01608040v1
38
115. Without injunctive relief enjoining the Defendants and their affiliates from
prosecuting ownership issues in the Nevada Action, the Nevada state court may issue a
decision that will conflict with this Court’s prior Cash Collateral and Confirmation
Orders and upset the settled plan valuations and distributions in these bankruptcy
proceedings.
116. In the event the Nevada state court finds that the Tropicana Trademarks
belong to Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc., the Plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable
harm for which they will have no adequate legal remedy.
117. Therefore, the Court should enjoin the Defendants from litigating the
ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks in the Nevada Action or any other forum.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Injunctive Relief Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 105)
118. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Complaint as if fully restated herein.
119. Alternatively, if injunctive relief is not granted under Bankruptcy Code §
362, the discharge and injunction provisions of the OpCo Plan, or Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7065,
then injunctive relief is proper under Bankruptcy Code § 105.
120. By raising ownership issues in the Nevada Action, Defendants are
launching a collateral attack on this Court’s Cash Collateral Order and its Confirmation
Order.
121. Therefore, the Court should enjoin the Defendants from litigating the
ownership of the Tropicana Trademarks in the Nevada Action or any other forum
pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 105.
BAY:01608040v1
39
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Judgment that Irrespective of Who Owns the Tropicana Trademarks
that the Exit Facility Agent Has a Valid and Perfected Security Interest for the
Benefit of the OpCo Exit Facility Lenders in the Tropicana Trademarks)
122. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Complaint as if fully restated herein.
123. An actual controversy exists concerning whether the Exit Facility Agent
has a valid and perfected security interest in the Tropicana Trademarks for the benefit of
the OpCo Exit Facility Lenders.
124. Pursuant to the Cash Collateral Order and the Confirmation Order, the
Court should find that New Tropicana Holdings owns the Tropicana Trademarks.
However, if the Court determines that New Tropicana Holdings does not own the
Tropicana Trademarks (notwithstanding its prior orders), then such a finding will create
an event of default under the OpCo Exit Facility Agreement. As such, a declaration from
this Court enforcing its Confirmation Order and declaring that the OpCo Exit Facility
Lenders have a valid and perfected security interest in the Tropicana Trademarks –
irrespective of who owns the Tropicana Trademarks – will promote a resolution of this
controversy.
125. The Court’s Confirmation Order confirms that the OpCo Exit Facility
Lenders have a valid and perfected security interest in the Tropicana Trademarks. The
OpCo Exit Facility Lenders relied on the Confirmation Order in loaning $150 million
dollars in exit financing to the Reorganized OpCo Debtors. Thus, even if the Court finds
that New Tropicana Holdings did not own the Tropicana Trademarks (which it should not
conclude), then the Court should find that the Exit Facility Agent has a valid and
BAY:01608040v1
40
perfected security interest in the Tropicana Trademarks on behalf of the OpCo Exit
Lenders as confirmed in the Confirmation Order.
126. Therefore, the Court should declare that the Exit Facility Agent has a valid
and perfected security interest in the Tropicana Trademarks for the benefit of the OpCo
Exit Facility Lenders irrespective of who owns the Tropicana Trademarks.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment)
127. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Complaint as if fully restated herein.
128. The OpCo Lenders voted to accept the OpCo Plan and agreed to accept
equity interests in New Tropicana in satisfaction of their claims and further agreed not to
seek any recoveries from the LandCo Debtors based upon the understanding that the
Tropicana Trademarks, which were of significant value, would be included in the assets
of the Reorganized OpCo Debtors.
129. If the Court determines, or allows the Defendants to proceed with
litigation in another court that results in a ruling that New Tropicana Holdings does not
own the Tropicana Trademarks, then the recoveries by the OpCo Lenders under the
OpCo Plan will be drastically reduced as the value of the Tropicana Trademarks will not
be reflected in the equity interests distributed to the OpCo Lenders in exchange for their
secured claims, and the value of the equity interests in the Reorganized LandCo Debtors
will be concomitantly increased without proper compensation to the OpCo Lenders.
Thus, under such circumstances, damages should be awarded to the OpCo Lenders in an
amount equal to the loss in value resulting from the change in ownership of the Tropicana
Trademarks.
BAY:01608040v1
41
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, pray for judgment against Defendants, as follows:
(a) That the Court issue a declaratory judgment declaring that:
i. the Tropicana Trademarks were property of the Tropicana
Entertainment, LLC’s estate under Section 541(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code and New Tropicana Holdings is the sole owner
of the Tropicana Trademarks;
ii. that Icahn Agency Services LLC has a valid and perfected security
interest in the Tropicana Trademarks for the benefit of the OpCo
Exit Facility Lenders;
iii. the LandCo Debtors’ supplemental bankruptcy schedules are null
and void;
iv. the Nevada Action violated the automatic stay to the extent it
called into question Plaintiffs’ trademark ownership rights and
security interests therein;
v. Icahn Agency Services LLC has a valid and perfected security
interest in the Tropicana Trademarks for the benefit of the OpCo
Exit Facility Lenders irrespective of whether New Tropicana
Holdings owns the Tropicana Trademarks; and
vi. In the event that the Tropicana Trademarks are not deemed the
property of the Tropicana Entertainment, LLC’s estate under
Section 541(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and New Tropicana
Holdings is not the sole owner of the Tropicana Trademarks, Icahn
BAY:01608040v1
42
Partners LP, Icahn Partners Master Fund LP, Icahn Partners Master
Fund II LP, Icahn Partners Master Fund III LP and all the former
OpCo Lenders are entitled to damages equal to the loss in value
resulting from the change in ownership of the Tropicana
Trademarks, which shall be determined at trial.
(b) That the Court grant a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants
and their affiliates from any further attempts to litigate ownership issues
concerning the Tropicana Trademarks in any jurisdiction;
(c) Costs in bringing this action; and
(d) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: August 10, 2010 BAYARD, P.A.
/s/ Justin R. Alberto
Charlene D. Davis (DE Bar No. 2336) Justin R. Alberto (DE Bar No. 5126) 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Post Office Box 25130 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-5000 Facsimile: (302) 658-6395
– and –
SONNENSCHEIN NATH &
ROSENTHAL LLP
Peter D. Wolfson (admitted pro hac vice) David R. Baum (pro hac vice forthcoming) Jo Christine Reed Ben Delfin 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Telephone: (212) 768-6700 Facsimile: (212) 768-6800
BAY:01608040v1
43
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Icahn Agency
Services LLC, Icahn Partners LP, Icahn
Partners Master Fund LP, Icahn Partners
Master Fund II LP and Icahn Partners
Master Fund III LP
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
/s/ Daniel J. DeFranceschi
Daniel J. DeFranceschi (DE Bar No. 2732) Lee E. Kaufman (DE Bar No. 4877) One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 Facsimile: (302) 651-7701
– and –
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
James H. Shalek (admitted pro hac vice) Scott K. Rutsky (pro hac vice forthcoming) Richard J. Corbi (pro hac vice forthcoming) 1585 Broadway New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-29000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Tropicana
Entertainment Inc and New Tropicana
Holdings, Inc.
17681653