In its October 22, 2020, CNH Diversified Opportunities Master Account, L.P. v.

On January 17, 2017, in a long-awaited decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp.,1 the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Section 316 of the Trust Indenture Act ("TIA") does not prohibit an out of court restructuring of corporate bonds so long as an indenture's core payment terms are left intact.

Artists have long relied on art galleries to sell their works, and artists and galleries frequently use the legal construct of a “consignment” to facilitate the display and sale of art. In a consignment, the gallery does not acquire title to a work. Instead, the artist (the “consignor”) entrusts the work to the consignee—in most cases a gallery or auction house—for the consignee to sell. If and when an artwork is sold, the gallery pays the artist out of the proceeds of the sale.

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that a lender’s security interest in accounts was not perfected because a reference to “proceeds” in the lender’s UCC financing statement did not expressly refer to “accounts.” The Sixth Circuit surprisingly interpreted the definition of “proceeds”1 in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code to exclude “accounts”2 (despite and without reference to provisions of UCC Article 9 to the contrary).

A recent decision by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the terms of an engagement letter demonstrates the need to clearly articulate the intended purpose and scope of an engagement. As the case described below demonstrates, if there is any ambiguity with regard to whether or not a fee must be paid and/or when an engagement is terminated, the resolution of such ambiguity may depend upon the description of the engagement’s purpose.