Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Suppose that a lessor has a legitimate fraud claim against its lessee. Also suppose that in an effort to save the costs of litigation, this lessor agrees to settle the matter. The lessee executes a promissory note in favor of the lessor in exchange for a release. Now assume that the lessee not only defaults on its obligation under the promissory note, but also files for bankruptcy. As counsel for the lessor you feel safe assuming that the underlying fraud claim is nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, and therefore the lessor's position is fairly strong. Well, in the jurisdiction of the Fourth and Seventh Circuits this assumption was incorrect before a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court finally resolved this issue.
Features
Obtaining the authority to make Critical Vendor payments is becoming more 'critical' than ever in the early stages of a bankruptcy case. Bankruptcy proceedings are supposed to be fair and reasonably predictable. However, the fair and predictable system of who gets what and in what order is becoming a lot less clear due to recent high-profile cases involving Critical Vendor payments.
At its May 15, 2003 meeting, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) came to a consensus on Issue No. 01-8, 'When an Arrangement Contains a Lease,' ending almost two years of deliberations on the issue. As the name implies, the purpose of Issue 01-8 is to provide guidance to accountants to assist them in identifying when an arrangement, including one containing multiple elements, is a lease. Determining when an arrangement is (or includes) a lease can be a difficult and judgmental process. Although the guidance in Issue 01-8 will prove helpful to accountants in determining whether a certain population of transactions contains a lease, it will not remove the difficulty or judgment involved in determining whether a lease exists for a large number of structured transactions.
Features
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
In a major narrowing of the Lanham Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the law allows the copying of public domain material without giving credit to its source. The 8-0 ruling in <i>Dastar Corp. v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp. </i> removes Lanham Act liability from parties that repackage facts or information that originated elsewhere. It could sweep away lawsuits often filed against major studios and publishers by authors and others who claim they were given insufficient credit for their contributions.
Producers are rushing to meet the public's demand for reality content. This content includes film and TV productions based on the lives of real people. But there are pitfalls in producing 'biopics' or 'docudramas.' By their very nature, concocted scenes and contrived dialogue inherent in these types of productions may give rise to liability. In fact, there have been a growing number of civil actions or claims made concerning the manner in which certain parties have been portrayed.
Features
On June 10, 2003, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) issued its report responding to an October 21, 2002 request from Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, for the agency to review the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG). In performing its review of the OIG (from October 2002 through May 2003), the GAO interviewed over 200 current and former OIG employees, examined thousands of pages of documents, replicated a web-based employee survey conducted by the OIG in January 2003, spoke to representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and various Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFUCUs), and interviewed three current or former inspectors general from other federal agencies.
The Congressional response to the scandals of Enron and its corporate cousins was not exactly laser-guided. Much ado already has been made about many provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the Act), but one that has drawn little comment is its unprecedented, sweeping and criminal whistleblower law.