Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>In Re Revel AC</i></b>: The Third Circuit's Roadmap Around Equitable Mootness
It is well established that courts consider the following four factors in determining whether to stay the effect of an order pending appeal: 1) whether the movant has made a strong showing of the likelihood of success on the merits; 2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay; 3) whether a stay would substantially harm other parties with an interest in the litigation; and 4) whether a stay is in the public interest. Recently, in In re Revel AC, Inc., 802 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit revisited these considerations and provided guidance on “how to conduct a balancing of the stay factors.” While the court's analysis in Revel was not a shocking revelation, it provides significant guidance on the most effective way to avoid losing appeal rights to the hard-to-pin-down doctrine of equitable mootness.
Case History
Revel AC, Inc. (“Revel”) opened a casino in Atlantic City in April 2012. Revel, 802 F.3d at 561. As part of its plans for the casino, Revel entered into a lease agreement with IDEA Boardwalk, LLC (“IDEA”) to run two upscale nightclubs and a beach club at Revel's casino. Id. The lease was originally for a 10-year term, and required IDEA to contribute $16 million to the projected $80 million cost of construction for the clubs, in addition to making monthly rental payments as Revel's lessee. Id. In June 2014, Revel filed a “Chapter 22″ bankruptcy, and in its first-day filings, requested permission from the bankruptcy court to sell its casino business free and clear of all liens and interests, including IDEA's lease. Id. IDEA filed an objection to the proposed sale, requesting that the bankruptcy court block Revel from selling the casino stripped of IDEA's lease, and citing 11 U.S.C. ' 365(h) in support of its request. Id. at 562. IDEA also filed a lawsuit against Revel seeking to enjoin it from engaging in any conduct that would prevent IDEA from operating its clubs on the leased premises, and seeking a declaratory judgment that, “under applicable law, the Lease is a lease of non-residential real property … and as such, is entitled to all relevant statutory protections … of 11 U.S.C. ' 365(h).” Id.
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.
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?