Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Will the <b><I>Tronox</I></b> Decision Help the New GM?
General Motors LLC — the New GM — is subject to a multitude of lawsuits stemming from its alleged wrongdoings and the alleged wrongdoings of its predecessor, General Motors Corp. — the Old GM — which sold its assets to New GM pursuant to a § 363 “free and clear” sale in bankruptcy in 2009. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit previously held that certain plaintiffs could not be barred by the “free and clear” provisions of the 2009 sale order (a decision the U.S. Supreme Court elected not to review). Following the denial of its petition for certiorari, the New GM is attempting to resurrect its principal defense against these lawsuits, arguing that the tort claims brought against New GM are barred on a new theory based on a recent Second Circuit decision in In re Tronox, 855 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2017).
In Tronox, the issue was whether individual claimants could pursue certain claims against Kerr-McGee, which had settled with the liquidation trust established as part of the Tronox bankruptcy. In this case, the appellate court barred individual plaintiffs from pursuing claims against Kerr-McGee, stating that the Bankruptcy Code prevented individual creditors from pursuing claims against a third party that are truly aimed at recovering “estate” assets. While Tronox may be a recent development in the Second Circuit, the theory has been previously adopted in the successor liability context in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In In re Emoral, 740 F.3d 875 (3d Cir. 2014), the court held that prepetition personal injury claims that relied upon the “mere continuation” theory of successor liability constituted causes of action that were property of the bankruptcy estate and thus eligible for settlement, release and discharge as part of the bankruptcy proceeding. See Corinne Ball, “'Emoral': Third Circuit Provides Comfort to Distressed Purchasers,” NYLJ (April 24, 2014).
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?