Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On March 15, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the 'Third Circuit') issued an important decision regarding the rights of equipment lessors who find themselves ensnarled in court proceedings as a result of a lessee's filing for bankruptcy protection. In Re: Federal-Mogul Global Inc v. Computer Sales International considered whether two lower courts properly modified an equipment lease under 11 U.S.C. '365(d)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code ' formerly codified at 11 U.S.C. '365(d)(10) ' by permitting proration of payment obligations as of the date of rejection of the leases. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that modification of the lease terms was improper.
In October 2001, Federal-Mogul Corporation, a large automotive parts supplier ('Federal-Mogul' or the 'Debtors') filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in Delaware. Computer Sales International ('CSI') is a lessor of computer equipment. CSI's customers identify equipment from third-party vendors that they wish to lease and then the customer and CSI execute a sale and lease-back transaction. Starting in 1992, CSI and Federal-Mogul entered into a Master Lease Agreement that set forth the basic terms of all future equipment leasing transactions. Over the following years, Federal-Mogul leased thousands of pieces of equipment from CSI under some 70 leasing schedules. The Master Lease Agreement provided for monthly rental payments that were due in advance on the first day of each month.
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.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
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.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.