Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Further Precedent Supporting the Retention of CROs
A recent decision by Judge Mary P. Gorman of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois in In re Copenhaver, Inc., Chapter 11 case no. 13-72052, is part of a growing trend of opinions and orders around the country allowing a debtor to retain a chief restructuring officer (CRO) under sections 105(a) and 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, rather than section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Copenhaver decision clarifies that although a CRO retained pursuant to sections 105(a) and 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code may not be required to file fee applications pursuant to sections 330 and 331 of the Bankruptcy Code, a CRO must still submit its fees to the bankruptcy court for approval.
Background
In the Copenhaver case, the Debtor filed its voluntary bankruptcy petition on Oct. 28, 2013. On Dec. 17, 2013, the bankruptcy court entered an order authorizing the sale of the Debtor's “core assets.” On Jan. 27, 2014, the Debtor filed an application to retain (the Retention Application) Dave Moravec as its CRO and consultant under sections 105(a) and 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Mr. Moravec, a former employee of the Debtor, was instrumental to the Debtor's asset sale, and left the Debtor to work full-time for the company that purchased the Debtor's assets. In the Retention Application, the Debtor contended that Mr. Moravec was the only person with sufficient knowledge of the Debtor's business who could be of meaningful assistance with the liquidation of the Debtor's remaining assets.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?
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.