Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'Triggering Event Test'
In the preference avoidance context, the insolvency of the debtor is an element of the prima facie case that is not commonly litigated. When it is litigated, however, the scope of a debtor's liabilities can make or break the case. This is because under established case law, if a liability is determined to be “contingent,” then courts are required to discount the face value of that liability by the estimated probability of the contingency occurring and the contingent liability becoming an actual liability. If the liability is deemed to be “non-contingent,” then the entire amount of the judgment can be added to the liability side of the balance sheet to usually make the debtor insolvent, thereby satisfying the insolvency element.
In August 2014, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (the Panel) issued a decision upholding a published decision by Judge Julia W. Brand in the Central District of California that left no doubt that the so-called “triggering event test” was the appropriate test to determine whether a liability is contingent or not for the purpose of showing insolvency under 11 U.S.C ' 547. The decisions are notable because prior to the bankruptcy court's decision, no court in the Ninth Circuit had provided clear guidance as to what constitutes a contingent liability in the specific context of an insolvency analysis under 11 U.S.C. ' 547. Applying the “triggering event test” to the facts at hand, the Panel held that a state court judgment is a non-contingent liability in its full amount for purposes of determining the insolvency of the debtor, even though on the date in question the judgment was not final under state law and the debtor had expressed optimism that the judgment would likely be overturned on appeal.
Factual Background
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.