Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Circuit Court Win Sets Up Conflict over Bankruptcy Code
A recent circuit court decision regarding the interpretation of section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has set up a conflict between two circuits. On March 15, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion regarding whether bankruptcy debtors are required to cure non-monetary defaults prior to assuming unexpired leases under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. ' 365. In re Bankvest Capital Corp. (Eagle Insurance Co. v. Bankvest Capital Corp.), 360 F.3d 291 (1st Cir. 2004). The First Circuit found — expressly contrary to a holding of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — that debtors are not required to cure such defaults, resulting in a split in the circuits over a very widely used section of the code.
Bankruptcy Code Section 365
The Bankvest case involved interpretation of Bankruptcy Code section 365(b)(2)(D). This subsection is part of a larger provision of the Bankruptcy Code, section 365, which permits a debtor to assume or reject executory contracts or unexpired leases that the debtor had entered into prior to bankruptcy. What constitutes an executory contract (including an unexpired lease) under the Bankruptcy Code has been the subject of a great deal of litigation and commentary over the years. Perhaps the most often quoted definition is “a contract under which the obligations of both the bankrupt and the other party to the contract are so far unperformed that the failure of either to complete performance would constitute a material breach excusing performance of the other.” Gallivan v. Springfield Post Rd. Corp., 110 F.3d 848, 851 (1st Cir. 1997).
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?