Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Dec. 31, 2015, amendments to the conflict of laws provisions under the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) will be active. Lessors should ensure that they search in the right jurisdictions and register their security interests in accordance with the new rules. A brief summary of the amendments is set out below.
Summary of Current Law and Amendments
Under the PPSA, the question of where to register in order to perfect a security interest is answered according to the type of collateral being granted as security. The amendments clarify the appropriate place to perfect security interests in the following:
Perfection of a security interest in Intangible and Mobile Collateral is governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor (i.e., the lessee) is located. Currently, a debtor is deemed to be located at the debtor's place of business or at the debtor's chief executive office if there is more than one place of business. Since the PPSA does not define the term “chief executive office,” it is often unclear where a secured party should perfect its security interest in transactions involving Intangible and Mobile Collateral.
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?