Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Delaware judge ruled not to grant a motion that would have stayed a liquidation plan setting aside $17 million to settle with those who have claimed sexual misconduct by former film industry executive Harvey Weinstein. David v. The Weinstein Co. Holdings LLC, 21-171.
With the motion denied, it's likely the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation for The Weinstein Co. Holdings as laid out in bankruptcy court will now move forward, as the four appellants — who have sexual misconduct claims against Harvey Weinstein — were the only parties to object to the plan. Federal Judge Maryellen Noreika wrote the releases that spurred the appeal give a chance for those who have made sexual misconduct claims against Harvey Weinstein, including the four appellants, to get meaningful payment, as opposed to likely getting nothing in a Chapter 7 liquidation.
The liquidation plan includes a global settlement, which would release nonconsensual third-party insurers and former officers and directors in exchange for insurers providing $35.2 million, nearly half of which would be set aside in a trust to pay those with sexual misconduct claims. In exchange for their release, the proposed plan requires insurers, officers and directors to waive potential indemnity claims or reimbursement for defense costs. On Dec. 18, the appellants objected to the plan, arguing it didn't meet Third Circuit standards because releasing those parties wasn't necessary for a reorganization and that the bankruptcy court made errors in its factual findings.
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
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.
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 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?