Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Court Rules Mere Conduit Defense Not Suitable for a Motion to Dismiss
At the motion to dismiss stage, courts usually won't consider affirmative defenses. This issue arose recently in a preferential transfer case, where a defendant sought to dismiss a complaint by arguing it was a mere conduit, not an initial transferee. But the court ruled against the defendant, explaining why it would not adjudicate a mere conduit defense on a motion to dismiss. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Pack Liquidating, LLC v. Kepler Grp., LLC, Adv. Proc. No. 23-50536 (In re Pack Liquidating, LLC), Case No. 22-10797, 2024 Bankr. LEXIS 2444 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 4, 2024).
Before their bankruptcy filings, the debtors sold consumer products online. The defendant in the preference action was an e-marketing services provider and an alleged agent of the debtors. In the debtors' Chapter 11 cases, the unsecured creditors' committee (Committee) sued the defendant to recover $389,000 transferred from the debtors. The complaint alleged that the defendant was the initial transferee of the funds. The complaint asserted a preferential transfer claim under Bankruptcy Code section 547 and a constructive fraudulent transfer claim under Bankruptcy Code section 548. The complaint also sought recovery from the defendant under Bankruptcy Code section 550.
The defendant licensed and installed advertising campaigns for the debtors that the defendant obtained from a third-party service provider. The service provider would bill the defendant for its services, then the defendant would invoice the debtors that amount plus a fee for its own work. The defendant would pay the service provider when the debtors paid the defendant.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?
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.