Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Involuntary Petitions Under BAPCPA
As bankruptcy practitioners awaited the enactment and effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ('BAPCPA'), the multitude of speaking panels, journals, and cocktail conversations offering their speculative commentary on the anticipated effects of the amendments to Title 11 paid increased attention to the proposed amendments' effects on the remedies afforded to creditors under ' 303 of the Bankruptcy Code ' namely the involuntary bankruptcy petition. While the changes to the text of ' 303 are minimal, the substantial changes to a debtor's eligibility requirements along with additional remedies afforded to creditors and trustees with respect to a debtor's exempt property provoked numerous questions with regard to involuntary bankruptcy petitions under the BAPCPA, and particularly in the context of individual debtors.
Oct. 17, 2005 came and went without the collapse of the bankruptcy world as we knew it, and, as with much of the commotion regarding implementation of BAPCPA, many of the questions raised with respect to involuntary petitions remain unsettled and have resulted in a split of authority amongst courts addressing such issues. In the wake of BAPCPA's implementation, the expanded remedies available to recover from a debtor's property for the benefit of the estate make involuntary petitions an increasingly attractive tool in creditors' arsenal. Additionally, BAPCPA's anticipated adversity on creditors' ability to prosecute involuntary petitions appears to have been mere conjecture, and, absent controlling precedent to the contrary, even the express changes to the text of ' 303 appear to have been much ado about nothing.
The 'Changes' to ' 303
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.