Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Can the Enron Claims Trading Issues Be Avoided?
Claims trading has become a part of the bankruptcy fabric as a short-term investment vehicle and a long-term opportunity with the intention of obtaining a strategic position in the confirmation process. It is now clear that the acquisition of a claim carries certain baggage, including the opportunity to be sued for actions that relate to the claim or other types of avoidance actions which can significantly delay the distribution on the claim. The baggage associated with a transferred claim has been articulated by Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez in the Enron cases, where he held that a transferee's claim against a bankrupt's estate can be subordinated or disallowed solely because of the transferor's misconduct or failure to return avoidable transfers even when there is no finding of wrongdoing or receipt of avoidable transfers by the transferee. Enron Corp. v. Avenue Special Situations Fund, II, LP (In re Enron Corp.), 340 B.R. 180 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006); In re Enron Corp., 333 B.R. 205 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005). Under these rulings, a purchaser of a claim is subject to later attack and subordination of the claim, regardless of whether that transferee had any knowledge of the transferor's inequitable conduct or purchased the claim in good faith for value.
However, an investor may not need all the rights associated with the claim and simply wants to purchase the income stream from the claim without the other rights associated with the claim. Further, an investor may have concerns due to the greater uncertainty in the claims trading industry because of the Enron decisions. In these instances, an investor should consider acquiring a distribution right ' the right to receive the distribution on the claim ' nothing more and nothing less.
The Enron Decisions and Impact on Claims Trading
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.