Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The New York UCC Comes of Age: Redux
Last year, I enthusiastically reported in these pages on the efforts of certain New York bar associations, legislators and others to bring the New York Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) into the 21st century. (See http://bit.ly/1bpFpzw). The need for modernizing the statute was obvious. New York was the only state that had not adopted amendments to Articles 3 (negotiable instruments) and 4 (bank deposits and collections) recommended as far back as 1990 by the Uniform Law Commission (the ULC, also known as the National Commissioners on Uniform State Laws) and the American Law Institute (ALI) ' its Articles 3 and 4 being the 1968 versions of those articles. Its Article 1 (general provisions) and Article 7 (documents of title) similarly failed to reflect the latest recommended provisions (being those proposed by the ULC and ALI in 2001 for Article 1 and in 2003 for Article 7. And it had not adopted the 2010 amendments to Article 9.
It should be noted that the amendments to Article 1 are now effective in all states except Georgia, Missouri and Wyoming. Puerto Rico has also not adopted the 2001 amendments to Article 1. However, proposed legislation adopting such amendments has been introduced in Wyoming as of the date of submission of this article. In addition, The amendments to Article 7 have not been adopted in Missouri and Wyoming. The amendments are also not effective in either Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. However, as with the 2001 Article 1 revisions, as of the date of submission of this article, proposed legislation adopting such amendments has been introduced in Wyoming. See http://bit.ly/1DarV02.
As the primary U.S. commercial law jurisdiction, the New York UCC's woefully laggard status created significant issues for practitioners and financial institutions alike. Mismatches between the New York UCC and other state statutes created fertile ground for errors in documents, and a growing inability to apply judicial decisions under other state UCC laws to New York (and vice versa). Industry associations were concerned it threatened New York's status as the jurisdiction of choice for conducting domestic and international business.
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.