Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recognition Under Chapter 15
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held in two related cases under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code involving failed hedge funds ' Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd. (Case No. 07-12383) and Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master Fund, Ltd. (Case No. 07-12384) ' that the mere presence of a registered office in the Cayman Islands, without 'pertinent' nontransitory economic activity in the Cayman Islands, was insufficient to recognize Cayman liquidation proceedings as 'main' or 'nonmain' and therefore the court denied relief under Chapter 15. In so holding, Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland parted with the more flexible approach to recognition, as noted in dicta in In re Sphinx, Ltd., 351 B.R. 103, 117 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006), providing that if no party objects, the bankruptcy court ' as a pragmatic matter ' could recognize a foreign proceeding as a nonmain proceeding despite the absence of any adhesive connection with the Cayman Islands beyond a registered office. The Bear Stearns decision highlights the rigid barriers to relief under Chapter 15. It is supported by the wording of the statute, but is the statute furthering the right policy? Should a statute intended to foster international cooperation in insolvency cases deny relief in support of well-established, common law foreign insolvency regimes?
The Bear Stearns decision is on appeal, but in the interim potential debtors (and their advisors) might be advised to undertake pre-bankruptcy planning to increase the likelihood the debtor will satisfy the formulaic determination of eligibility for relief under Chapter 15. In effect, the repealed ' 304 of the US Bankruptcy Code, Chapter 15 was added to the Code with the 2005 amendments to adopt the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency promulgated by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (the 'Model Law').
The Decision
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?