Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
One of the most difficult conversations a bankruptcy lawyer can have with a client is explaining why it has been sued for the recovery of money received pre-petition from a debtor for services rendered or goods supplied. We often hear the same incredulous mantras: “But the [debtor] owed me the money … for a long time.” “We helped stave off bankruptcy because we extended the payment terms.” Often these comments are made to the trustee or debtor who commenced the preference suit, before the creditor consults its attorney. The client believes the suit is a big misunderstanding because the payments it received were on account of a real debt and does not understand the admissions contained in its statements.
The pain of a preference action is much easier to accept in those situations where a creditor knowingly accepted a preferential transfer, but did so in the hope that a bankruptcy would not be filed or the preference suit would never be commenced. This occurs when a lawyer was consulted before the collection efforts were made, and the creditor was advised that the collection process might actually result in the recovery of funds that may have to be repaid if the obligor files for bankruptcy 90 days hence. We have seen a glint in the eye of many a client when deciding whether to accept a payment, or additional collateral from a financially strapped customer when we use the old adage: “Real men take preferences, wimps file proofs of claim.” Of course, the advice to knowingly accept a preferential transfer should only be given after consideration of the cost of obtaining the potentially preferential transfer. If legal action has to be taken to obtain a judgment or the leverage necessary to get payment, the cost may not be justified if a bankruptcy filing is inevitable. Often the creditor has very little information that will allow it to predict with any amount of accuracy the likelihood of a customer filing a bankruptcy petition in the succeeding 90 days.
The policy behind Section 547 makes some sense to most bankruptcy lawyers while leaving the typical preference defendant feeling like it is the victim of a grave injustice. Section 547 was intended to redistribute assets of the debtor to creditors to alleviate the unfairness resulting from payments made by debtors to favored creditors prior to the initiation of the bankruptcy case. It was intended to prevent creditors who had increased their collection efforts and pressured or sued the debtor for payments prior to the petition date to profit from such pressure or lawsuit to the disadvantage of other creditors who had failed to take such measures. Section 547 empowers the trustee or the debtor in possession to recovery money or property that the debtor owned prior to the bankruptcy and to redistribute that money more equitably to creditors. The idea was that money and property recovered from preference actions would be redistributed to creditors more fairly than what occurred pre-petition when only the most vocal, litigious or important creditors were paid.
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.
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.
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.