Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Evolution of Pre-Bankruptcy Planning Raises Questions of Good Faith
Ever since the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code decades ago, bankruptcy courts have had to address the threshold question of whether the debtor should be allowed to utilize the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. In the early years, this issue of whether the bankruptcy case was filed in "good faith" usually involved a solvent or insolvent debtor that was embroiled in a two-party dispute and filed the case as a litigation tactic to stop the litigation. Later cases often involved a solvent debtor with many parties in litigation, and courts reviewed whether the debtor had a legitimate bankruptcy purpose or was under financial distress other than the present ability to pay bills as they matured or balance statement insolvency.
In recent years, as extensive pre-bankruptcy planning has evolved, bankruptcy filings frequently involve affiliates of larger companies, engineered with a structuring of liabilities in mind. This is especially relevant in the area of mass tort litigation. The question of whether these targeted filings are for a legitimate bankruptcy purpose or should be dismissed has been the subject of significant high-profile litigation.
Recently, in the case of In re AIG Financial Products, (Case No. 22-11309 (MFW)), which did not involve mass tort litigation, Judge Mary Walrath of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware considered a motion to dismiss a Chapter 11 case filed by former executives of the debtor who claimed the debtor was not facing financial distress that justified a bankruptcy filing, and the purpose of the case was to shift the value of the company to the debtor's parent, American International Group, Inc. (AIG). Walrath denied the motion, and found the debtor faced appropriate financial circumstances and had the appropriate purpose to warrant the filing.
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?