Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The debate over whether ad hoc or informal committees or groups of creditors or interest holders (“ad hoc committees“) must comply with Bankruptcy Rule 2019 recently intensified due to a split among several Bankruptcy Court decisions. Previously, both In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 363 B. R. 701 (Bankr. S. D. N. Y. 2007), and In re Washington Mut. Inc., 419 B. R. 271 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009) (“WaMu“) held that ad hoc committees, actively participating in a case as a committee, were subject to Rule 2019. Following these decisions, many practitioners thought the law was settled ' ad hoc committees were required to file the requisite Rule 2019 disclosures ' while others continued the practice of not filing Rule 2019 disclosures or only filing partial Rule 2019 disclosures. Fueling the debate is the decision in In re Premier Int'l Holdings, Inc., 2010 WL 198676 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 10, 2010) (“Six Flags“), which disagreed with Northwest and WaMu, and held that an informal committee of noteholders was not a committee representing more than one creditor by consent or operation of law and therefore not subject to Rule 2019. Thereafter, In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, 2010 WL 41102 (Bankr. E. D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2010), agreed with Six Flags, evenly splitting the reported decisions.
One side of the debate argues for increased disclosure of the kind of information covered by Rule 2019, consistent with the “open kimono“ policy of the Bankruptcy Code. To these advocates, providing such information will further level the playing field, presumably allowing parties in interest to negotiate with more pertinent information at hand, thereby resulting in better and more equitable distributions to all parties in interest. On the other side of the debate are those who seek to protect their confidential and proprietary trading information, and who outside the bankruptcy context carefully guard such information from disclosure. Those on this side of the debate argue that forcing disclosure of such information would actually result in reduced participation by various parties with available financing for Chapter 11 cases, to the detriment of debtors and their estates.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.