Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bankruptcy Rule 2019
Bankruptcy court procedural rulings typically go unnoticed. However, this year two bankruptcy court rulings regarding procedural disclosure requirements potentially applicable to investors participating in the bankruptcy process have caused quite a stir. Both rulings related to the scope of disclosure mandated by Bankruptcy Rule 2019, which applies to 'committees' and 'entities' that represent more than one creditor in a bankruptcy case.
After almost 70 quiet years on the books without controversy, Rule 2019 suddenly thrust itself onto bankruptcy's center stage as a result of a decision in the Northwest Airlines case holding that Rule 2019 mandated extensive public disclosures of sensitive trading information. See In re Northwest Airlines, __ B.R. __ (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007). This decision sent shockwaves through the investing community because, read most broadly, it could apply to virtually any group of parties who act in a coordinated manner through common counsel in a bankruptcy case.
Another bankruptcy court has recently rejected the Northwest approach in an unpublished ruling in the Scotia Pacific Company LLC's ('Scopac') Chapter 11 case (jointly administered and captioned In re Scotia Development LLC, Case No. 07-20027 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)). The creditors in that case successfully presented several arguments that were not presented in the Northwest case. This article summarizes these developments.
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?