Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'Personal' Alter Ego Claims in Bankruptcy
With corporate fraud and bankruptcy filings on the rise, creditors are increasingly looking to related entities, corporate shareholders, directors and officers to pay their claims when the corporation goes belly-up. Unfortunately, bankruptcy courts have made it virtually impossible for creditors to maintain individual alter ego claims against the debtor's shareholders and affiliates. As a result, crafting an alter ego claim that will survive an attack by the bankruptcy trustee (or the bankruptcy court itself) requires finesse.
Test of Determination
The vast majority of courts agree on the test to employ in determining whether an individual creditor has standing to bring an alter ego action against the debtor's shareholders. If the injury alleged is “general” – that is, if the estate and its creditors are similarly injured – then the alter ego action is properly brought by the debtor-in-possession or the bankruptcy trustee. By contrast, if the injury is “personal” to a particular creditor, and no other creditor has been similarly injured, the alter ego action is properly brought by the individual creditor. Not surprisingly, many creditors have tried (and failed) to plead sufficiently personal injuries to wrest control of the alter ego action from the trustee. This begs the question: what type of injury is personal enough to confer standing on an individual creditor? The answer depends on three things: 1) the state law governing the alter ego claim; 2) the trustee's interest in the alter ego action; and 3) the equities of the case. If state law does not confer standing on the debtor to pierce its own corporate veil, then a creditor alter ego suit is permissible.
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?