Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
All's Well That Ends Wellness:
For four years, there was no clarity, only questions. I am referring, of course, to those glaring questions left unanswered by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 2, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), which caused untold sleepless nights, ruined family vacations, and created marital strife. Questions such as, what if bankruptcy litigants consented to the bankruptcy court's adjudication of Stern claims? Would that cure the Article III violation? And, if litigants could consent, would the consent need to be express, or would implied consent be sufficient? And what about the question of whether bankruptcy judges would ever again be allowed to enter a final judgment in any avoidance action?
Four long years and then all was well, or Wellness, to be precise. In May 2015, the Supreme Court once again weighed in on the issue of bankruptcy court adjudication of Stern claims and provided us with a measure of clarity in its recent opinion, Wellness International Network, Ltd., et al. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932 (2015). This article explores the background leading up to the Wellness decision, the facts and the holding of the Supreme Court's decision, and the aftermath of the decision.
The Bankruptcy World Before Stern
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.