Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Enron and Anna Nicole Smith
On May 1, 2008, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP's bankruptcy litigation team, acting as counsel to the Official Employment-Related Issues Committee of Enron Corp. (the 'Employee Committee'), obtained a court-approved settlement of $850,000 from the Estate of John Cliff Baxter (the 'Baxter Estate'), a former 'Top Hat' executive of Enron who elected to accelerate approximately $1.3 million in deferred compensation benefits on the eve of the bankruptcy filing and committed suicide shortly thereafter. That and other similar transfers were challenged by the Employee Committee in a complaint filed against Baxter and other former executives alleging causes of action in preference and fraudulent transfer.
Although a number of the transferees challenged (unsuccessfully) the personal jurisdiction of the Enron bankruptcy court, only the Baxter Estate challenged its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation. In a motion for summary judgment filed in December 2005, the Baxter Estate asserted that the Enron bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Employee Committee's action under the so-called 'probate exception' to federal jurisdiction. The probate exception is a judicially crafted exception to otherwise proper federal jurisdiction that reserves to state probate courts such exclusive powers as the annulment of a will, the administration of a decedent's estate, and the disposal of property in their custody. At its core, the probate exception reiterates the general principle that where one court is exercising jurisdiction over property, a second court should not assume jurisdiction over the same property.
Application of the Probate Exception
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?