Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In September 2004, the Quigley Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer, filed for Chapter 11 relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, and advised the court in its first-day filings that it intended on filing a pre-negotiated Chapter 11 plan as soon as practicable that would establish a trust and provide for channeling injunctions in favor of, among others, Pfizer, a non-debtor third party, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. ' 524. Some parties-in-interest, including an ad-hoc committee of tort claimants that had organized and appeared early in the bankruptcy case, viewed Quigley's bankruptcy filing as a carefully orchestrated scheme by Quigley to shield its non-debtor parent from substantial exposure.
Fast-forward almost eight years to April 10, 2012, when the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, agreeing with the district court and disagreeing with the Quigley bankruptcy court, concluded that in fact the channeling injunction issued in favor of Pfizer did not bar the commencement or continuation of certain asbestos actions against Pfizer. This article addresses issues that the Second Circuit considered in reaching its conclusion, including: 1) whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enjoin the asbestos actions from going forward in light of the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Stern v. Marshall and under the Bankruptcy Code in general; and 2) whether the asbestos actions in question fell within the scope of the channeling injunction.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
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.
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.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.