Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
One of the most difficult conversations a bankruptcy lawyer can have with a client is explaining why it has been sued for the recovery of money received pre-petition from a debtor for services rendered or goods supplied. We often hear the same incredulous mantras: “But the [debtor] owed me the money … for a long time.” “We helped stave off bankruptcy because we extended the payment terms.” Often these comments are made to the trustee or debtor who commenced the preference suit, before the creditor consults its attorney. The client believes the suit is a big misunderstanding because the payments it received were on account of a real debt and does not understand the admissions contained in its statements.
The pain of a preference action is much easier to accept in those situations where a creditor knowingly accepted a preferential transfer, but did so in the hope that a bankruptcy would not be filed or the preference suit would never be commenced. This occurs when a lawyer was consulted before the collection efforts were made, and the creditor was advised that the collection process might actually result in the recovery of funds that may have to be repaid if the obligor files for bankruptcy 90 days hence. We have seen a glint in the eye of many a client when deciding whether to accept a payment, or additional collateral from a financially strapped customer when we use the old adage: “Real men take preferences, wimps file proofs of claim.” Of course, the advice to knowingly accept a preferential transfer should only be given after consideration of the cost of obtaining the potentially preferential transfer. If legal action has to be taken to obtain a judgment or the leverage necessary to get payment, the cost may not be justified if a bankruptcy filing is inevitable. Often the creditor has very little information that will allow it to predict with any amount of accuracy the likelihood of a customer filing a bankruptcy petition in the succeeding 90 days.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
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.
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.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.