Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Financial Contract Amendments to Bankruptcy Code
Esoteric and arcane, the financial contract provisions of the new Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 — those dealing with repurchase agreements, securities contracts, swap agreements, forward and commodity contracts — have been given short shrift by a mainstream media focused on the more “newsworthy” consumer provisions of that legislation. However, to bankruptcy practitioners focusing on larger commercial cases or involved in the capital markets, these amendments are important and deserve a close look.
Although generally described as simply adding netting provisions to the Bankruptcy Code, the amendments, which are set forth in Sections 901 through 911 of the legislation, do much more. They build upon and expand the network of safe-harbor protections previously granted in the Bankruptcy Code to qualifying parties in qualifying financial transactions from time to time since the Bankruptcy Code became law in 1978. Netting is one element of this expansion. Both the existing provisions and these new amendments are consistent with the long-espoused goals of financial regulators, such as the Federal Reserve and the SEC, to eliminate potential risks to the international financial system that would otherwise result from the collapse of a major market participant. The amendments update and expand existing law in recognition of the continued evolution of the capital markets since the last significant change to these safe harbors over 10 years ago.
Good Intentions v. Reality
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.