Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Turbulence Continues in 'Safe Harbors '
Last month, Part One of this two-part article discussed the prosecution of post-confirmation state law fraudulent transfer claims in the Lyondell case and highlighted conflicting views coming from within the United States Bankruptcy and District Courts for Southern District of New York.
This month, I discuss a recent decision in the Lehman Chapter 11 case, where the bankruptcy court held that the methodology to be used to calculate amounts due in connection with the liquidation of certain swap transactions under Bankruptcy Code section 560 is governed by the contractual terms of the relevant master swap agreement and accompanying schedule and such terms are not invalidated by ipso facto provisions contained in the Bankruptcy Code. See Michigan State Housing Dev. Auth. v. Lehman Bros. Deriv. Prods. Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), No. 08-13555, —B.R. —-, 2013 WL 6671630 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013).
This decision represents a broader plain meaning interpretation of the section 560 safe harbor provision for swap agreements, and departs from bankruptcy court's prior much narrower flip-clause rulings. One remaining question that counterparties will face, however, is how to determine whether a contractual right contained in a swap agreement is sufficiently “baked” into the agreement so as to be protected by the section 560 safe harbor.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.