Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Sept. 13 upheld a Delaware Bankruptcy Court's decision to block a Florida-based energy company from collecting a $275 million merger termination fee against the bankruptcy estates of Energy Future Holdings Corp. and a subsidiary.
The precedential decision held that the lower court judge was correct to backtrack on an initial order allowing NextEra Energy Inc. to claim the break-up fee, finding that the judge had overlooked evidence crucial to the case. However, the ruling came over the objection of one appellate judge, who said the decision set a “troubling, if not dangerous” precedent.
The ruling stemmed from EFH's Chapter 11 proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Shortly after the company filed for bankruptcy protection, it agreed to sell its $18.7 billion stake in Oncor Electric Delivery Co., the largest electricity transmission and distribution system in Texas, to NextEra in a move that would have provided approximately $9.5 billion to its estate.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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?