Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a Creditor Exclusion provision in directors and officers (D&Os) insurance policies may result in significant limitations on the coverage provided to the D&Os when the underlying dispute is with a creditor acting in its creditor capacity. Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Verbeek (5th Cir. Sep. 27, 2016). See http://bit.ly/2fkNY1a.
In the Markel case, the owners and officers of Color Star Growers of Colorado, Inc. (Color Star) were sued by lenders who provided the company with a credit facility to refinance its debt. It should be noted that nowhere are the defendants referred to as directors as well. The lenders alleged that the individual defendants misrepresented the company's financial condition in procuring the loan. The defendants tendered the litigation to Color Star's D&O insurer requesting it to defend the litigation as required by Color Star's D&O insurance policy. The insurer refused citing the policy's Creditor Exclusion.
Background
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 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.
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.
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.
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.