In Rockwell v. Despart, the Third Department recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Given the potentially harsh consequence of failing to timely assume a vital lease, a Chapter 11 debtor must be vigilant to avoid a forfeiture. It is important to know, however, that all might not be lost even if the debtor misses this deadline.
Partner Had Authority to Sell Tenancy In Common Property
Title Report Put Subsequent Lender on Inquiry Notice of Prior Mortgage
Administrator Did Not Breach Covenant Against Grantor's Acts
Co-Tenant Establishes Title By Adverse Possession
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Given the potentially harsh consequence of failing to timely assume a vital lease, a Chapter 11 debtor must be vigilant to avoid a forfeiture. It is important to know, however, that all might not be lost even if the debtor misses this deadline.
This article examines the agreement — known as a Subordination, Non-Disturbance and Attornment Agreement (SNDA) — typically used by hotel lenders, owners and managers to set forth their respective rights upon a foreclosure, and consider disputes that may arise when a party seeks to enforce its SNDA rights.
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.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
