Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Precedential Effect of BAP Decisions
The bench and bar are well acquainted with the principles of stare decisis and controlling precedent, but after nearly 25 years, we have yet to definitely settle the question of the precise binding effect and precedential value of decisions issued by one of the most misunderstood tribunals within the federal court system, the bankruptcy appellate panels (BAPs). A recent bankruptcy court decision from Ohio reminds us that the controversy goes on unabated, and with our attention once again focused on this nettlesome question, the time seemed ripe to review where we stand and posit some arguments as to where we should be headed.
Background
As part of the 1984 Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act ('BAFJA'), Congress authorized each of the circuit courts of appeals to create a specialized tribunal, composed of the bankruptcy judges of that circuit, to convene and hear appeals of decisions of bankruptcy judges residing in that circuit's districts. The BAPs were designed as an alternative to the nominal appellate path from the Article I bankruptcy courts to the Article III district judges. The intended benefits included relieving congestion in the district courts, attracting the best and brightest of bankruptcy practitioners to the bench via this optional tasking, and utilizing a body of jurists with specific knowledge of the Bankruptcy Code, thereby yielding swifter and better results that the generalist Article III court might provide.
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.