Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Cape Town: Rail Just Around the Bend, Satellites Just over the Horizon
For the last nine months, participants in the aircraft leasing and finance industry have been dealing with the newly formed international registry for the registration of interests in aircraft and the changes in substantive law governing aircraft sale, lease, and finance transactions brought about by the ratification of the Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the related Aircraft Protocol. The Convention and Aircraft Protocol were developed and are being promoted by Unidroit and the Aircraft Working Group, an organization whose members include Boeing, Airbus, General Electric, and Citibank. So far, 11 countries, including the United States, have ratified both the Convention and the Aircraft Protocol. Next up for the Cape Town Convention is its application to rolling stock and possibly later satellites and other space assets.
Unidroit and the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail have scheduled for this February in Luxembourg a diplomatic conference for the finalization and adoption by Unidroit's member countries of a rail protocol that would make the Cape Town Convention applicable to the leasing and financing of rolling stock. The Cape Town Convention and the rail protocol would then govern rolling stock leasing and financing transactions in each country that later ratifies them.
What is the Cape Town Convention? It is an international convention governing the rights of parties in certain mobile equipment through the use of international registries and the enactment of substantive laws governing the rights of secured lenders, lessors, and others in such equipment. The Convention was adopted by 21 of Unidroit's member countries at a diplomatic conference in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2001. Its signatories include the United States, Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The Convention alone, however, does not apply to any particular equipment. It is designed so that particular types of mobile equipment become subject to its provisions by way of adoption and ratification of individual 'protocols,' the first of which being the Aircraft Protocol adopted at the same time as the Convention. The Aircraft Protocol first became effective in seven countries, including the United States and Ireland, on March 1, 2006 and is now effective in 11 countries.
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?