Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Queen Is Dead, Long Live the Queen?
The automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 is one of the most important principles of bankruptcy law. It provides crucial breathing space for the debtor to reorganize or liquidate, and avoids the piecemeal dismemberment of the estate's assets. Among other things, it stays “the commencement or continuation … of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title.” While the scope of the automatic stay's protection is broad, it is generally limited to a debtor.
However, in rare instances, courts have extended stay protection to non-debtors through 11 USC § 105. This is considered extraordinary relief reserved for unusual circumstances, and may be analogized to the inherent power of federal courts under their general equity powers. The high burden to grant this extraordinary equitable relief includes: 1) “danger of imminent, irreparable harm”; 2) “reasonable likelihood of a successful reorganization”; 3) “balancing the relative harm as between the debtor and the creditor”; and 4) “balancing of the public interest in successful bankruptcy reorganizations with competing societal interests.” In re SDNY 19 Mad Park, LLC, 2014 WL 4473873, at *3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014).
In the seminal case of Queenie, Ltd. v. Nygard Intern., 321 F.3d 282, 288 (2d Cir. 2003), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit broadly expanded the automatic stay to include a debtor's wholly owned subsidiary where the adjudication against the non-debtor would have an immediate adverse economic impact on the debtor: “The automatic stay can apply to non-debtors, but normally does so only when a claim against the non-debtor will have an immediate adverse economic consequence for the debtor's estate.” 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.
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.
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?