3orders approving the plans of reorganization and granting the OpCo Exit Facility Lendersliens 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 royaltyfree basis in connection with their Las Vegas operations as they had when the LandCoDebtors were wholly owned by the OpCo Debtors. But contrary to prior assurances tothis 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
theTropicana 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 asmuch 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 ismeaningless. The agreement has long since been extinguished, if not by 2002 whenAztar Corporation became the beneficial owner of all the equity in the entity alleged tohave contingent reversionary interest, then by operation of law subsequently by,
, the failure to record the agreement with the United States Patent & Trademark Office prior to the transfer of title to the Tropicana Trademarks to TropicanaEntertainment, LLC in 2007. But according to Defendants, the (long-extinguished) 1980