Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Debtor Has Right to File Bankruptcy to Limit Landlord's Claims
One of the fundamental policies of the Bankruptcy Code is to provide an equal distribution to all creditors of a debtor's estate. There are a variety of tools under the Bankruptcy Code to accomplish these goals. One such power is the statutory limitation of a landlord's rejection damage claim under section 502(b)(6). This “cap” is predicated on the desire to prevent excessive rejection damage claims from diluting the distribution to other unsecured creditors, as well as the recognition that landlords – by obtaining repossession of their property – stand in a better position than other creditors to mitigate their damages over time.
Although creditors have various protections throughout the bankruptcy process, they are vulnerable to the application of Bankruptcy Code provisions limiting their claim. As a result, companies with certain types of claims may file bankruptcy solely to take advantage of these claim-limiting provisions. Examples of such provisions include executive compensation claims limited under section 502(b)(7), certain tax liability claims limited under section 502(b)(3) and 502(b)(8), landlord rejection damage claims under section 502(b)(6), and claims resulting from securities litigation limited through subordination under section 510(b).
Another strong bankruptcy policy gives creditors whose claims and rights are “impaired” under a plan the right to vote to accept or reject such plan, thereby allowing creditors to “accept” or “reject” what the debtor proposes to give them. If enough impaired creditors reject a plan, the debtor either needs to proceed with a “cram-down” plan or pursue an alternative one.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?