Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recharacterization
In the recent case of In re Dornier Aviation (North America), Inc., 453 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2006) the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that
' 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides the bankruptcy court with authority to recharacterize a claim from debt to equity. In upholding the recharacterization of a parent's $84 million claim against its wholly owned subsidiary, the Fourth Circuit made clear that form will not prevail over substance in the context of inter-company transactions. The Fourth Circuit failed, however, to provide any guidance on how inter-company transactions might be structured to avoid recharacterization under ' 105(a). This article presents one obvious, albeit not often utilized, solution: Parent corporations should collect debts due and owing from their subsidiaries to avoid the possibility of being relegated to the unenviable position of an equity investor in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding.
The Case
Dornier Aviation (North Ameri-ca) (DANA) was a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Fairchild Dornier GmbH (GmbH), a Ger-man aircraft manufacturer. Dor-nier Aviation, 453 F.3d at 229. GmbH and DANA had a close business relationship pursuant to which GmbH provided DANA with spare aircraft parts, which DANA either used to provide services to GmbH's customers, or resold for a profit. Id. GmbH invoiced DANA regularly for the spare parts it provided. Id. GmbH's invoices provided that payment was due within 30 days unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Id. at 230. The parties also performed annual reconciliations of amounts owed from DANA to GmbH as a result of outstanding invoices. Id.
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?