Iam_24 working:iam issue 14_text

entity or IP holding company). This is not at all unique and many significant IP holders establish SPEs primarily for tax purposes, but also to control operating company cash flows and profit. KCD issued the bonds that possibility of a much larger acquisition.
are being held by the Bermuda insurer.
Sears is licensing the brands from its own subsidiar y of Sears sitting there holding entity with assets but not income because A new generation of IP bonds has been born.
These bear only a passing resemblance to the royalty backed Bowie bonds which were issued Holdings’, the Bermuda insurer which it in 1997. That instrument relied on a stream of controls, or KCD, is in position to engage in projected income from copyrighted songs to financial engineering that could benefit the make the lender whole. My understanding is However Sears chooses to deploy the assets that Sears’ brand-name bonds do not involve more on the sub’s balance sheet than on resulting from capitalising its leading brands, Sears’). In fact, the KCD bonds are rated by one thing is cer tain: under-leveraged IP Contrar y to popular belief, monetising IP Moody’s Investor Service four rungs better than Sears’ junk debt. Through KCD, Sears can issue debt and use the funds to acquire and capital providers have overlooked. But an insurer or for other leverage. For Sears while interest in IP assets is healthy, too equity holders, this creates opportunity; for heaped on these early IP instruments, some much capital chasing the wrong rights is not.
its secured debt holders, the re-capitalisation of their cash flow projections proved overly It’s up to the financial markets to divine the is less positive. They can no longer rely upon logic of this transaction, but my money is on the company’s crown jewel assets in the advances, such as the iPod. Not faring much event of a bankruptcy. But, then again, in that scenario those assets are not likely to be royalties from Bristol-Myer’s Squibb's HIV middle of April and much of the press picked up on how Sears “quietly created” the major step for ward for IP not only because of (http://retail.seekingalpha.com/ar ticle/3196 their size, but because of their structure and financial security. Eric Hedman, an analyst at 0\) responds thoughtfully to that question: apparent flexibility. They not only capitalise S&P, which like Business Week is owned by other wise underutilised intangible assets, McGraw-Hill, called it the largest IP loan ever.
poorly reflected on the company’s balance $1.8 billion in cash, and investors would company additional resources that can make The structure and intent of these bonds are wor th examining. This transaction affects ever y large IP owner and investor, especially significant for cer tain strategic invention rights, namely patents. While patents without retailing giants Sears and Kmart in the image unlicensed brands are credit-wor thy, patents of Warren Buffet’s valued-laden Berkshire profits without any additional expense.
or families of patents that make companies Hathaway. But what has actually happened? not leave control of the company. They are insurance subsidiar y. According to Business new "brand" bonds allow him a vehicle Bruce Berman is president of Brody Berman Week, Sears first created KCD, a “separate, to do a similar deal. How? Lamper t could Associates in New York. His latest book is wholly owned, bankruptcy-remote subsidiar y” Intellectual Asset Management June/July 2007 5

Source: http://www.brodyberman.com/articles/IAM_24%20IP%20Investor%204.pdf