Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Last month, we discussed “The Debtor's Nightmare,” explaining how the Fourth Circuit joined the Ninth, Third and Eleventh Circuits in adopting the “hypothetical test” in denying a debtor in possession's assumption of an executory contract under section 365 (c) of the Bankruptcy Code despite an express assignability provision in the contract. RCI Tech. v. Sunterra Corp. (In re Sunterra Corp), 361 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2004). This month, we continue with “the debtor's paradox.”
The Debtor's Paradox
Sunterra begs the question: If a debtor is prohibited from assuming an agreement when the debtor could not hypothetically assign the agreement, why can't the debtor assume the agreement when the agreement contains consent to assignment so that the debtor hypothetically assign the agreement? The Fourth Circuit seems to be telling debtors that they are stuck either way by saying, “Debtor, you can't assume if you can't assign, but even if you do have consent to assign, you still can't assume.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at customercare@alm.com or 877-256-2473
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?