Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Unique Settlement Ruling in Smart World Case
It is the uncommon occasion when creditors seek the Bankruptcy Court's assistance to impose a settlement that compromises the debtor's asserted rights to recovery against third parties. While settlements are typically preferable to the debtor's engagement in contested and costly litigation, it is a challenge to convince a court to compromise a debtor's asserted claims. In a recent case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, a settlement was negotiated and ultimately approved by the Bankruptcy Court over the vigorous objection of the debtors-in-possession (the “Debtors”), resolving a hotly contested adversary proceeding and third party claims. In Re Smart World Techs., LLC, Freewwweb LLC, and Smart World Communications, Inc., Case Nos. 00-41645 (CB) through 00-41647 (CB) (“In re Smart World I“). The Bankruptcy Court's order was upheld on appeal by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Smart World Techs., LLC v. Juno Online Services, Inc. (In re Smart World Techs., LLC), 03 Civ. 9467 (DLC), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8802 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2004) (“In re Smart World II“).
This case is unique: While some courts have permitted creditors' committees to initiate proceedings when a trustee or debtor-in-possession unjustifiably failed to bring suit or abused their discretion in not suing, implying a qualified right for creditors' committees to initiate suit with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court, Unsecured Creditors Committee v. Noyes (In re STN Enterprises), 779 F.2d 901 (2d Cir. 1985)) (“STN”), no case to the authors' knowledge had previously addressed the question of whether such implied right extended to permit resolution of a suit where the debtor-in-possession unreasonably failed to settle a suit.
Background
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?