공시 • Apr 19
Joinder to Motion for Case Conversion Filed for JLM Couture, Inc. JLJ Bricken LLC joins with Hayley Paige Gutman to file a motion in the US Bankruptcy Court seeking the conversion of JLM Couture, Inc.’s bankruptcy case from Chapter 11 reorganization to Chapter 7 liquidation on April 17, 2024. The reason being the decline of relationships with important retailers and the debtor’s inability to stabilize its cash flows and provide some recovery to creditors making it difficult to consummate a plan of reorganization. 공시 • Jul 28
Court Finds in Favor of JLM Couture - Instagram and Pinterest Accounts Are Business Accounts - Denies Hayley Gutman's Motion in its Entirety A Manhattan Federal Court held that New York bridal house, JLM Couture, Inc., has established a clear likelihood of success in their lawsuit against former designer, Hayley Gutman, including that the @misshayleypaige Instagram and Pinterest accounts are business accounts for the Hayley Paige brand and thus owned by JLM. The Court held that these accounts, which were created using the Hayley Paige brand name, are the product of JLM's marketing efforts and investments which built the popularity and success of the Hayley Paige brand. Judge Laura Taylor Swain, in 67 pages of decisive rulings found that Ms. Gutman, used JLM's money, resources, and strategies to help the company build the Accounts' image around and for the JLM-owned Hayley Paige brand, and thus, cannot now claim company property as Hayley own. Even more compelling, Judge Swain ruled that the Preliminary Injunction should be modified and bar Ms. Gutman from being identified as a designer of competitive products or using or authorizing others to use Ms. Gutman's role as a designer to promote the sale of any competitive goods, no matter what title she may claim in connection with a new venture or new employment, until August 1, 2027. The ruling does not prevent Ms. Gutman from designing wedding dresses. While Ms. Gutman can work for other brands, neither she nor those brands nor other third parties may identify her as the designer of those wedding dresses, and her role as a designer cannot be used to promote the sales of competitive goods. Separately, and most telling, the Court denied Ms. Gutman's motion, in its entirety, to dissolve the Preliminary Injunction. 공시 • Mar 06
JLM Couture, Inc. Announces Second Circuit Court of Appeals Denies Hayley Paige Gutman's Petition The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in JLM Couture Inc. vs. Hayley Paige Gutman, denied appellant Ms. Gutman's petition to rehear her argument and her petition for a hearing en banc. The Appeals Court Order supports its earlier decision, as well as multiple federal District Court findings, that Ms. Gutman is not entitled to use the Designer Name in trade or commerce and that she breached her clear and unambiguous employment contract and is not entitled to any additional compensation. 공시 • Jan 26
JLM Couture, Inc. Announces Appeals Court Upholds JLM Couture in Contract Dispute with Hayley Paige Gutman JLM Couture, Inc. announced the Second Circuit Court of Appeals strongly affirmed that Hayley Paige Gutman breached her clear and unambiguous employment contract and is not entitled to any additional compensation. The court stated that JLM had no duty to pay Gutman if she did not work. It was Ms. Gutman who resigned and who breached her employment contract, not JLM, the Appeals Court ruled. The Appeals Court also affirmed that JLM was completely within its rights to enforce a noncompete clause in the employment contract. The Court stated that, Gutman provides no reason to question the district court's determination that this Noncompete Agreement was reasonable and fully enforceable in light of her unique role at JLM. They also stated that the District Court was correct in upholding JLM's rights to the brand name and marks in trade and commerce, and decline(d) Gutman's invitation to depart from the plain language of the Contract. In addition, the Court in no way ordered the Instagram account to change hands nor did they determine ownership of the account. They expressly declined to do so. They remanded this issue back down to the District Court as that is the proper procedure.