Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Successful Wind-Down and Exit Management
Professionals are often asked to assist in the wind-down and liquidation of a company by the company's legal counsel. The requesting attorney, who may have a history with the company, knows the company is in trouble and may even expect a bankruptcy filing will come relatively soon.
At this point the company's secured lender is unwilling to provide additional support, the company has been unable to attract alternative financing, and the equity sponsor will not continue to fund the company. The company's limited working capital often comes from stretching trade and other creditors to the breaking point. Word of the company's situation has spread to the point where vendors will supply product only on C.O.D. terms or demand a portion of old debt, further exacerbating the cash crunch. Payment of outstanding accounts receivable slows while customers investigate switching suppliers. Uninformed employees assume the worst, and many are paralyzed with fear of losing their jobs; those who can are fleeing. The ability to meet payroll is often in doubt.
In hiring a seasoned exit manager, much of the burden in administering to these concerns is lifted from counsel. Wind-down specialists handle the troubled company's day-to-day operational issues. This ensures the company does not make promises it cannot keep, and does not run afoul of bankruptcy rules, for example, freeing counsel to focus on their core competencies. Against this backdrop, wind-down specialists create and implement an exit strategy that maximizes recovery, while minimizing costs, future liabilities, and personal exposure.
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.