Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Retention of Restructuring Professionals
Restructuring professionals must be acutely aware of potential conflicts of interest. Indeed, federal courts on occasion have disqualified a professional or ordered the disgorgement of the professional's fees in situations where that professional failed to properly disclose a conflict of interest. The importance of conflicts of interest is especially evident in today's global economy, in which restructuring matters routinely involve many of the same parties.
It is not always easy for professionals to determine whether they are disqualified from providing services to a debtor in bankruptcy. For example, it is well settled that disclosures are not limited to actual conflicts, but also include potential conflicts. See, e.g., Halbert v. Yousif and Tanners, Inc., 225 B.R. 336, 345-346 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1998) (“the concept of disinterestedness in ' 327(a) unquestionably covers not only actual, but also potential, conflicts of interest, and includes the avoidance of an appearance of a conflict of interest”) (citing Rome v. Braunstein, 19 F.3d 54, 57-58 (1st Cir. 1994)). However, are professionals really required to resort to speculation and conjecture in order to unearth every potential conflict of interest? Should professionals be concerned that parties will make strategic challenges to their employment in a particular proceeding? The bankruptcy court's decision in the WorldCom bankruptcy addressing a motion to disqualify WorldCom's accountant provides some important clarification regarding professional retention in bankruptcy. See In re WorldCom, Inc., 311 B.R. 151 (Bankr. S.D. 2004).
Basic Standard for Professional Retention in Bankruptcy
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?