Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Two recent decisions from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Quebecor World Litigation Trust v. Clarklift-West, Inc. dba Clarklift Team Power (In re Quebecor World (USA), Inc.), 2014 WL 5292981 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2014) and Pereira v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (In re Waterford Wedgwood USA, Inc.), 508 B.R. 821 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) affirmed the use of “average lateness” methodology to examine both the subjective and the objective components of the ordinary course of business defense to preference actions. This has significance in that average lateness methodology may now be employed to assess both independent prongs of the ordinary course of business defense.
Quebecor World Litigation Trust
In Quebecor World Litigation Trust v. Clarklift-West, Inc. dba Clarklift Team Power, the litigation trustee for the Quebecor World litigation trust sued Clarklift-West under Bankruptcy Code section 547 to avoid and recover payments the debtor made during the preference period. The defendant argued that the payments were not avoidable because they were made in the “ordinary course of business.” Bankruptcy Code section 547(c) states that payments made in the ordinary course of business are immune from avoidance. The trustee filed a motion for summary judgment.
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 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.
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?