Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Official Committee Members: Fiduciary Duty Liability
Members of official creditors' committees in Chapter 11 cases owe a fiduciary duty to the entire body of unsecured creditors. See Woods v. City National Bank, 312 U.S. 262, 268-69 (1941). As fiduciaries, committee members should have undivided loyalty to those they serve, free of any conflict of interest. Id. The imposition of such a broad duty to unsecured creditors generally might be otherwise unremarkable, except that committee members themselves obviously have significant selfish interests in the outcome of the bankruptcy case. See 11 U.S.C. ' 1102(b)(1) (committee shall ordinarily consist of the persons, willing to serve, that hold the seven largest claims against the debtor). In brief, bankruptcy law puts committee members in a contradictory position: They owe their membership on the committee to the magnitude of their self-interest in the case, yet they seem to be legally required to put the interests of others ahead of their own interests.
Accordingly, conflict of interest questions often arise in the committee setting. The following are not atypical:
Scenario 1: There are proposed competing plans of reorganization. Plan A would provide unsecured creditors with a 10% cash dividend. Plan B would provide reorganization securities to unsecured creditors, the value of which are very probably less than the 10% dividend offered by Plan A. However, an advantageous business relationship with the reorganized debtor would continue only under Plan B for a trade creditor member of the committee, but not for the bondholders whose claims constitute much of the unsecured debt in the case. May that trade creditor member vote in favor of a committee resolution to favor Plan B?
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.