Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Sigh of Relief: Derivative Actions Safe for Now
Much to the relief of many in the Third Circuit, its long-awaited en banc ruling in the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Cybergenics Corp. v. Chinery, (en banc) No. 01-3805 (May 29, 2003) disagreed with the decision of one of its panels and upheld the right of parties other than a debtor or trustee to pursue avoidance actions under the Bankruptcy Code on a derivative basis. In doing so, the court supported the well-established practice allowing these derivative actions, and eschewed a slavish plain-language interpretation of Section 544(b) in favor of a broader, multi-section reading.
The Circuit's analysis of that Section employs a 'holistic' approach that is arguably quite at odds with the now decade-old Supreme Court trend of plain-language interpretation. In fact, the circuit court took great pains to demonstrate why the plain-language holding of Hartford Underwriter Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank ' a case appellees and the dissent argued was controlling ' was inapplicable. With the rumored retirement of Chief Justice Rehnquist, plain-language's champion, will Cybergenics signal the end of an era, or merely a narrow exception created by necessity? Or, if appealed to the Supreme Court, will it offer a final, conclusive opportunity to establish plain language as the sole interpretive mechanism for the Code?
Summary of the Case
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.