Part Two of a Two-Part Article
In our article that appeared in last month'sBankruptcy Strategist, we discussed the special rule contained in Section 382(l)(5) with respect to the
<b>Part Two of a Two-Part Article.</b> In our article that appeared in last month's issue, we discussed the special rule contained in Section 382(l)(5) with respect to the use of net operating losses by a company that has restructured under the protection of the bankruptcy court. Where the stock, debt and claims against a bankrupt company are traded, companies execute lock up agreements with their stockholders or request orders from the bankruptcy court to restrict trading in the stock, debt or claims so as to protect its net operating loss carry forwards. Often, out of an excess of caution, the orders requested have been overly broad and have disrupted trading in such debt and claims. On Nov. 22, 2004, The Bond Market Association and The Loan Syndications and Trading Association announced that in a joint effort they had developed a model NOL order to address these disruptions. Part Two discusses the results.
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
In our article that appeared in last month'sBankruptcy Strategist, we discussed the special rule contained in Section 382(l)(5) with respect to the
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Bankruptcy Strategist
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Businesses subject to the CCPA now must conduct risk assessments for certain types of processing activities and, starting in 2028, must certify to California regulators that they completed the assessments.
The firms that will thrive when it comes to the adoption of AI will not be those with the most tools or the most prompts. They will be the ones with clear standards, defined human ownership and a dedicated AI partner able to turn raw generation into reliable, high‑value content.
Despite incredible progress in natural-language reasoning, AI tools still face fundamental limitations when it comes to performing even basic trademark searches. Here are five important reasons why.
Artificial intelligence is changing how legal work is performed. What’s needed is problem-solving optimism, a clinical appraisal of the firm’s capabilities and economic position, and earnest resolve to change before market pressure forces change under duress.
The ethical use of AI should be a prerequisite for the integration of AI into a legal practice. Failure to learn and implement transparency, accountability, and best practices for responsible AI usage prior to employing AI will likely result in ethical and malpractice difficulties.