Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Counsel Concerns
For the second time in six months, a law firm representing a Caesars Entertainment entity has narrowly avoided trouble in bankruptcy court. This time a court-appointed bankruptcy examiner found in March that Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison was in a compromised position when it simultaneously represented parent company Caesars Entertainment Corp. (CEC) and its casino-operating subsidiary in intercompany transactions during a period when the operating unit became insolvent.
In a report filed in U.S. bankruptcy court in Chicago, where Caesars Entertainment Operating Co. (CEOC) has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy since January 2015, the examiner wrote: “Paul Weiss did have a conflict of interest in representing both CEOC and CEC in at least some of the relevant transactions.” But the examiner concluded that any action by the estate or its creditors seeking damages against the firm would likely fail.
The report, which serves as a road map for creditor claims litigation, found that there was no basis at all for claims against the casino companies' previous outside corporate counsel, O'Melveny & Myers, which represented several interconnected Caesars entities long before the operating company was insolvent. (One of the key partners working for the gambling giant, O'Melveny restructuring group co-chair Gregory Ezring, was among seven partners who in 2011 jumped to Paul Weiss, where he continued to work on the Caesars matter.)
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.