Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Seventh Circuit Takes the Road Less Traveled, and Looks to the Substance of ' 546(e)
In a surprise decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declined to follow the “plain meaning” approach adopted by the Second, Third, Sixth, Eight and Tenth Circuits, and rejected an opportunity to expand the safe-harbor protections afforded by Bankruptcy Code section 546(e) to protect “securities transactions” in the private market where the extent of a financial institution's involvement is to serve as an intermediary or conduit. FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, No. 15-3388, 2016 WL 4036408 *6 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016) (“We will not interpret the safe harbor so expansively that it covers any transaction involving securities that uses a financial institution or other named entity as a conduit for funds.”).
Background
On July 18, 2016, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which held that “settlement payments” made “in connection with a securities transaction” through a “financial institution” were protected by the safe harbor provisions of Bankruptcy Code section 546(e) based upon the “plain meaning” of the statute. FTI Consulting, Inc., Trustee of the Centaur, LLC Litigation Trust v. Merit Management Group, LP, 541 B.R. 850 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (holding payments made by the debtor in exchange for the shares of another entity, and that entity's transfer of a percentage of the proceeds to one of its shareholders, were protected by Bankruptcy Code section 546(e)'s safe harbor even though the funds merely passed through Citizens Bank and Credit Suisse, as intermediaries or conduits).
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.