Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Two states recently enacted non-uniform amendments to UCC Article 9 that should be of urgent concern to the equipment leasing and finance industry. Legislation in both Tennessee and Nebraska extends added protection to UCC filers from the risk created by uncertainty over sufficiency of individual debtor names. A secured party must provide the correct name of the debtor when filing to perfect a security interest. Yet, Article 9 offers no guidance to help a secured party determine the correct name of an individual.
Unfortunately, the new protection for UCC filers really just shifts the risk of debtor name variations to prospective lenders. As a result, lenders must exercise a heightened level of due diligence before entering into transactions with individuals in these states. This article discusses the individual debtor name problem, explains the effect of this legislation, and recommends due diligence best practices for lenders dealing with individuals located in Tennessee and Nebraska.
The Individual Debtor Name Dilemma
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.