Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
DE Bankruptcy Court Decision Provides Reminder of Potential Consequences of Violating the Automatic Stay
An opinion from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware provides a reminder of the potentially severe punishment that a party can suffer as a result of its violation of the automatic stay of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, even if the debtor does not suffer any actual damages as a result of the violation.
In general, the automatic stay forbids creditors from taking offensive actions against a debtor outside of the confines of the debtor's bankruptcy case, including efforts to collect debts or pursue litigation against the debtor, exercise control over the debtor's property, or terminate or interfere with the debtor's property interests. Subsection (k) of Section 362 provides for sanctions in favor of the debtor against creditors who violate the automatic stay.
In In re Healthcare Real Estate Partners (Healthcare Real Estate Partners v. Summit Healthcare REIT), AP No. 16-50981, (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 14, 2023), a group of petitioning creditors filed an involuntary Chapter 7 petition against the debtor as part of a scheme to terminate the debtor's role as the manager of two investment funds. Following the commencement of the bankruptcy case, the petitioners, in violation of the automatic stay, in fact did terminate the debtor's position as manager of the two funds, and then proceeded to dissolve the two funds.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.