Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Equitable Mootness Doctrine
Over time, equitable mootness, a court-created doctrine, had been consistently applied and embraced by appellate courts. The doctrine, as it has been applied, provides that appeals from orders confirming Chapter 11 plans will be considered moot ' and thus not subject to appellate review ' if: 1) a plan has been substantially consummated; and 2) granting appellate relief would unravel the plan or be inequitable to third parties relying on the order confirming the plan. Based on, and consistent with, decisions such as that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in In re Chateaugay , 94 F.3d 772, 776 (2d Cir. 1996), and the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Continental Airlines , 91 F.3d 553, 560 (3d Cir. 1996) ( en banc ), the equitable mootness doctrine has been read broadly to create a presumption that if a plan has been substantially consummated, appeals of the confirmation order are equitably moot.
Recently, three separate appellate court decisions, one by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Grasslawn Lodging v. Transwest Resort Props . ( In re Transwest Resort Props .), 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11312 (9th Cir. Ariz. July 1, 2015); and two by the Third Circuit in One2One Communs. v. Quad/Graphics , 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12544 (3d Cir. N.J. July 21, 2015) and Tribune Media Company v. Aurelius Capital Management , 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14530 (3d Cir. Del. Aug. 19, 2015), highlight the fact that there are differences among the circuit courts with respect to the appropriateness of the equitable mootness doctrine and the presumption of its application. In reasoning and result, these decisions challenge the doctrine and call into question its continued existence. By reason of these decisions, for parties-in-interest and for practitioners, consideration of whether to consummate a Chapter 11 plan while an appeal of the confirmation order is pending should and must be reevaluated.
In re Transwest Resort Properties
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.
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.
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.
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?