Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
For decades, insurers seeking to object in their insured's Chapter 11 reorganizations were blocked by the "insurance neutrality" doctrine, a prudential limitation that stopped courts from considering objections on the merits unless the insurer could show a confirmed plan "impair[ed] the insurer's pre-petition policy rights" or "'alter[ed] the quantum of liability'" it faced. But in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected this judge-made limitation as "conceptually wrong and mak[ing] little practical sense." That ruling also indicates tension between the court's statutory approach and that of lower courts which apply other doctrines to end bankruptcy appeals on prudential grounds with no consideration of the merits.
Truck addressed the scope of the right to participate in bankruptcy proceedings created by Section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Truck Insurance Exchange is the liability insurer of the debtor, which faces thousands of asbestos tort claims. Notwithstanding Truck's obligation to pay virtually every dollar of those claims, each lower court had applied the insurance-neutrality doctrine to hold that Truck had no right to be heard. The Supreme Court disagreed. The court recognized that in Section 1109(b), Congress used "capacious" language "to promote greater participation in reorganization proceedings" and conditioned a party's right to be heard only on "whether the reorganization proceedings might affect a prospective party, not how a particular reorganization plan actually affects that party." In holding that insurers like Truck "with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim" are "'part[ies] in interest' that can raise objections" because the reorganization can affect their interests in "myriad ways," the court refused to allow prudential considerations unmoored from the Code to trump congressionally enacted language.
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
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
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 real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.