Argentine Sovereign Bondholders v. Financial Reality (May 22, 2020)

Back in June 2018, we observed that ~~J.C. Penny~~ Argentine century bonds were fetching ~~an 11.9%~~ a yield of nearly 10%… as a way to ~~heap economic derision~~ encourage reflection on 12% statutory prejudgment interest rates.

~~J.C. Penny filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy~~ Argentina entered technical default this past Friday.

How are those century bonds trading? The chart below shows that they are available at 34.62 cents on the dollar! So, if you loved ’em at issuance, or even at over 70 cents on the dollar back in August 2019, you gotta love ’em here, when their yield is well north of 20%! Load up!

Argentina's dollar bonds rally back from lows, but still trade in distressed territory

While ~~J.C. Penny~~ Argentine sovereign bondholders may have had to face financial reality, double-digit statutory rates continue to impose their measure of financial disreality.

J.C. Penny v. Financial Reality (May 15, 2020)

Back in June 2018, we observed that J.C. Penny bonds were fetching an 11.9% yield… as a way to ~~heap economic derision~~ encourage reflection on 12% statutory prejudgment interest rates.

J.C. Penny filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy this past Friday.

While J.C. Penny may have had to face financial reality, double-digit statutory rates continue to impose their measure of financial disreality.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (Supreme Court Opinion, April 23, 2020)

It is *usually* exciting for damages experts when the Supreme Court issues an opinion on an intellectual property matter! We emphasize “usually” because, in this instance, nothing really exciting emerged from this decision.

The Supreme Court held that a “plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark as a precondition to a profits award.”

Opposing arguments appear not to have established much traction:

While this decision resolves this specific dispute, it appears effectively to confirm the typical assumptions experts have afforded damages in Lanham Act cases. But the Supreme Court decided the matter, and thus it merits a post.