Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When a debtor that is subject to a foreign insolvency proceeding holds assets, contracts or other rights in this country, it requires a mechanism to ensure that it can deal with creditor claims in a manner consistent with the foreign restructuring regime. Chapter 15 specifically provides such relief by permitting foreign parties access to the U.S. federal court system for the purpose of facilitating cooperation between the courts and other authorities of foreign countries and U.S. courts. At first glance, Chapter 15 might appear to have the relatively minor role of staying actions against U.S. assets while the main foreign proceeding moves forward. However, as one recent case out of the Southern District of New York demonstrates, Chapter 15 carries the potential to significantly impact not only the main foreign bankruptcy, but civil litigation in the United States as well.
In In re Comair Limited (In Business Rescue), S.D.N.Y. Bankr. (Nov. 15, 2021), U.S. District Court Judge James L. Garrity Jr. of the Southern District of New York was tasked with analyzing Chapter 15 in the context of a discovery motion by the debtor in a South African restructuring proceeding. Specifically, the foreign representatives of Comair Limited moved for entry of an order permitting them to conduct discovery of The Boeing Company pursuant to section 1521 of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules 2004 and 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. After considering the purpose of Chapter 15's discovery provisions in light of the facts and posture of the parties' claims, Garrity found that Comair's foreign representative had established grounds under Section 1521(a)(4) to conduct discovery of Boeing.
The history of the parties here involves a few of the major issues facing airlines in recent years. Comair is a large regional commercial airline company operating in southern Africa. In 2010, it entered into an agreement with Boeing, under which it agreed to purchase aircraft for Comair to operate. A subsequent purchase agreement entered in 2013 called for the manufacture and delivery of eight 737 MAX 8 aircraft. After one aircraft was delivered in February 2019, the remaining seven were scheduled to be delivered between March 2019 and March 2024. However, following the fatal 737 MAX 8 crashes in October 2018 and March 2019, all 737 MAX 8 aircraft worldwide were grounded, and the parties abandoned the delivery plan. Ultimately, in February 2020, Comair declared that it had terminated the 2013 purchase agreement, which Boeing disputed.
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
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.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?