Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Protect Your Insurance
Whether in bankruptcy or in liquidation, trustees or liquidators of insolvent corporations look for available sources of cash to pay creditors. Unfortunately for in-house or outside attorneys representing such corporations, director and officer liability policies or professional malpractice policies are identified early on as possible sources of funds for insolvent companies. This article discusses the theories that are typically brought in these cases, and suggests ways to avoid or defend such claims in the future.
General theories of liability. Complaints against attorneys will almost always involve negligence claims in order to trigger insurance coverage. Since negligence principles are generally well known, they will not be discussed in this article. In addition to negligence claims, attorneys often are charged with claims for breach of contract or fiduciary duty when a corporation becomes insolvent. In a breach of contract claim, the negligence allegations are often used as a basis for the breach. Some state courts also incorporate negligence principles in a breach of contract claim by creating in every attorney-client relationship an implied contractual term that the attorney will conform to the applicable standard of care.
Attorneys also commonly face breach of fiduciary claims when companies become insolvent. A breach of fiduciary duty claim may be based on allegations that the attorney failed one of the following duties: 1) safeguarding the client's property; 2) avoiding conflicts of interest; 3) dividing loyalty; and 4) providing adequate information so that the client can make an informed decision. The most common claims are based on alleged conflicts of interests.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.