Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Advancement Claims Not Entitled to Priority in LLC Receivership
Do the advancement rights of directors and officers have priority over the rights of creditors to the assets of a limited liability company in receivership? In two recent Delaware Court of Chancery decisions ' Andrikopoulos v. Silicon Valley Innovation LLC, C.A. No. 9899-VCP (Del. Ch. July 30, 2015), and Henson v. Sousa, C.A. No. 8057-VCG (Del. Ch. Aug. 4, 2015) ' Vice Chancellors Donald F. Parsons Jr. and Sam Glasscock III both concluded that the claims for advancement were not entitled to priority treatment as administrative expenses of the receivership. The cases underscore the importance of obtaining directors and officers liability insurance regardless of the existence of advancement and indemnification provisions in the entity's organizational documents or the party's employment agreement.
Dispute over Advancement Claims
The main dispute between the parties in both cases was whether, in the context of a receivership under Delaware law, advancement claims are administrative expenses or unsecured creditor claims. Under federal bankruptcy law, the filing of a bankruptcy petition significantly affects the ability of a creditor to obtain payment of defense costs from a debtor corporation. Such payments are only permitted if they constitute administrative expenses under Section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. To qualify as an administrative expense, the expense must have arisen from a post-petition transaction between the creditor and the trustee/debtor-in-possession and the transaction must have benefited the estate in the post-petition period. If claims are not administrative expenses, they are treated as ordinary pre-petition claims not subject to priority.
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.