Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Herrick, Feinstein LLP has announced that Joshua J. Angel has joined the Financial Restructuring, Bankruptcy & Creditors' Rights Practice Group in the firm's New York office. The founder and managing director of of Angel & Frankel, he led the firm to become one of the nation's premier bankruptcy and corporate reorganization boutiques before it merged with Cole Schotz in 2005. Angel has served as the lead debtor's counsel in some of the Bankruptcy Court's most significant cases and will continue to focus his practice on financial restructuring.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP has announced that Harvey R. Miller, the former head of the Business Finance & Restructuring Department, will be rejoining the firm. Miller is returning to the firm after more than four years at the merchant banking firm Greenhill & Co. LLP where he was a Managing Director and also served as Vice-Chairman. During his 32-years at Weil Gotshal, Miller was an integral figure in the firm's rise to prominence in the bankruptcy and restructuring area. In addition to his law firm and investment banking work, Miller is an Adjunct Professor of law at New York University Law School and a Lecturer in Law at Columbia University School of Law. He also has served as a Visiting Lecturer at Yale Law School and has authored and co-authored several highly regarded texts and publications in the restructuring field, including The Bankruptcy Strategist.
A day after Weil, Gotshal & Manges officially announced the return of Harvey Miller, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP announced that it has recruited four prominent bankruptcy attorneys from Weil. George A. Davis, Deryck A. Palmer, John J. Rapisardi and Andrew M. Troop will all join Cadwallader as partners in New York. The four bring over 85 collective years of restructuring experience, having represented debtors, creditors, lenders, and investors in complex domestic and international business reorganizations, debt restructurings, and distressed mergers and acquisitions in a wide array of industries, including healthcare, automotive, telecommunications, airline, energy, financial, retail, and manufacturing. Together, they have represented debtors in some of the largest and most complex bankruptcy cases.
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 [email protected] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?