A supplier's receipt of payment under a critical vendor order does not bar the debtor or trustee from pursuing a preference claim to recover amounts paid prepetition to the vendor, according to a recent ruling from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
Absent Express Language, Restrictive Covenant Does Not Run With the Land
Mortgagee Not Entitled to Expungement of Satisfaction
Junior Mortgagee Entitled to Rely on Erroneously Recorded Satisfaction of Senior Mortgage
Easement Holders Entitled tTo Pave Easement to Improve Access
Federal Government Not Liable for Erosion Damages Caused By Alleged Failure to Maintain Jetties
Representations and Warranties Survive Closing
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently ruled that any attempt to avoid preferential or fraudulent transfers must be supported by evidence that the avoidance will benefit the debtor's estate and the debtor's creditors — not just the debtor itself.
The true extent of funding amounts fueling legal tech and e-discovery software companies will likely never be widely shared. The reason is simple: Without regulatory requirements, the competitive risks of disclosing these investments regularly outweighs any potential benefits.
The rush to such sectors as industrial and multifamily has compressed cap rates, leaving many to reconsider how they measure value and leaning more toward internal rate of return.
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.
