ICO sent the termination letter to IMNP at the last possible moment on Friday and they filed BK on Sunday. Its very clear they did this as a last minute attempt to try to keep the license out of the bk (or prevent it from being foreclosed on by Discover on Monday morning if the sale had gone one though) They had no desire to termite the license. If they had, they would have already terminated it. They don't even mention what the grounds were that they had to terminate it in their motion. If ICo had the license back, they would just end up re licensing it to someone else anyway (which is what they have been trying to do lately) - no doubt to one of the same companies that IMNP is already in discussiosn with. So it is in everyone's best interest, that ICO transfers or re-licenses to a new buyer of Bert. I suspect we will see a motion by IMNP to sell Bert in the near future. Any buyer of Bert will require they get the license. Neither ICo nor IMNP has the ability or desire for a long drawn out legal battle and unless the Judge rules in ICO's favor, that is what would happen. ICO stated in their letter to IMNP that they wouldn't approve a transfer, but they cant "unreasonably withhold" their approval. How exactly can they not approve the transfer when they don't even know what the deal is yet or who the buyer is? lol.
