A Canadian on-line dating site, PlentyofFish, wanted to purchase the bankrupt site True.com but the Texas Attorney General filed a petition to block the marriage on the ground that the transfer of the private personal information of millions of people who had used True.com would potentially violate the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Which made us think: Is a corporation’s violation of its customers’ personal privacy covered by insurance?
Last week Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai, issued Decree No. 57 for 2009 Establishing a Tribunal to decide the Disputes Related to the Settlement of the Financial Position of Dubai World and its Subsidiaries (the “Decree”). The Decree establishes a tribunal (the “Tribunal”) comprising three members--Sir Anthony Evans, Michael Hwang, and Sir John Chadwick--to hear and decide all demands and claims submitted against Dubai World and/or its subsidiaries including Nakheel and Limitless, and any of their directors or employees.
Please note: The below information may require updating, including additional clarification, as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to develop. Please monitor our main COVID-19 Task Force page and/or your email for updates.
Section 1113 – Bankruptcy
The CARES Act includes actions specifically designed to provide various levels of temporary regulatory relief to financial institutions and to support the financial services industry as a whole. Following are the key areas in which the CARES Act provides relief to the financial services industry:
Up to $500 Billion in Emergency Liquidity for Eligible Businesses
On Feb. 25, The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.,[1] a case involving a dispute between (1) the trustee in bankruptcy of a defunct bank holding company, and (2) the FDIC, as receiver for the bank holding company’s failed bank subsidiary, over the ownership of a federal income tax refund that was payable by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to the bank holding company as the parent of a consolidated tax filing group.
Kilpatrick Townsend’s Paul Rosenblatt and David Posner, bankruptcy partners, and Marc Lieberstein, a brand licensing and franchise partner, recently published an article in the New York State Bar Association Intellectual Property Section Bright
On December 6, 2019, the governor of New York signed into law the New York Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“NYUVTA”). N.Y. DEBT. & CRED. §§ 270-281. Until the occurrence of that event, New York had adhered for 95 years to the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (“NYUFCA”) and had refrained from replacing it with the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”), which was adopted by virtually all of the other states as a replacement of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (“UFCA”).
Under title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”), generally speaking, payments by insolvent debtors to an unsecured or undersecured creditor on pre-existing indebtedness (so-called “antecedent debt”) made during the 90-day period before the debtor’s bankruptcy filing (the “Preference Period”) are vulnerable to claw-back in the debtor’s bankruptcy case as voidable preferences.
On March 8, 2018, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized certain changes to its mortgage servicing rules. The Bureau issued a final rule1 to provide mortgage servicers with more flexibility and certainty regarding requirements to communicate with borrowers under the CFPB’s 2016 mortgage servicing amendments.
Background
Kilpatrick Townsend partner David Posner spoke at a recent New York State Bar Association event where he and other panelists discussed the topic “Around the Edges of IP: Complexities of IP in Bankruptcy.”
Mr. Posner provides four key takeaways from his presentation — “Recent Trends Involving Intellectual Property in Bankruptcy:”