Go over, two boats Peerless. Even yet in legal strategies that prioritize substance over form, problems in the execution of procedures can produce significant consequences and the danger of transactional failure. And even chapter 11 cases presenting quick asset sales may make litigation over such formalities for years in the future. A recently available example illustrates both points.
On March 1, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ny issued and authorized a judgment for direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Your decision grants summary judgment in Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Motors Liquidation Company v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al, adversary proceeding 09-00504, in the GM bankruptcy. In-depth summaries have been already received by the decision, at the least in some law firm bulletins. I wish to view the oral arguments, but hope it will be easier to look for a seat in the courtroom than in NML v, if the 2nd Circuit allows a direct appeal. Argentina.
A short, raw, stylized version of the details, all of which happened well before the bankruptcy: the debtor was settling a $300 million artificial lease obligation, and a document (UCC-3) was supposed to be recorded in the public record terminating the performance of the financing statement refining that interest. Among the filed firing statements mistakenly known a financing statement number concerning a $1.5 billion term loan, not the synthetic rental. Counsel for the person had submitted and prepared the record with the wrong number. But it was distributed in advance with advice for JPMorgan, the administrative agent for secured parties in both deals. Until after the bankruptcy case was recorded the mistake was caught by no one.
Unless another method of perfection were set up however if the report was effective to end the financing statement relating to the term loan, the interest getting the term loan could be unperfected. And to the degree unperfected, the security interest interest could possibly be eliminated in the debtor’s bankruptcy under the alleged strong-arm clause (see this previous post for an aesthetic). The likely billion dollar consequences of an eight-digit clerical error must offer a impact to any law school attached dealings type – specially of use during the month of March.
This post is about to digress further here. A perhaps more common acceptance problem in the secured transactions world is when secured events file preliminary funding statements against customers that’ll not be entirely authorized, or authorized at all, although they’re not the stereotypical phony filings. Lenders may “pre-file” money statements against potential individuals without their consent, on the theory that a subsequently executed security agreement will authorize them. Article 9 makes superior that such filings require contemporaneous or pre-existing person consent, but apparently not absolutely all creditors play the game in this manner. Or, as my friend Lissa Broome has investigated, a bank could be authorized to file a financing statement because the person has authenticated a protection agrement, but files a statement with a larger security information.
These cases are totally not the same as the GM litigation. But these contexts also deserve thorough monitoring of the limitations of approved filings. Well beyond the somewhat unusual facts captured in the view licensed for charm, how to construe agreement to cloud, or uncloud, subject in the current Article 9 filing system is extremely important to the reliability of commercial law.
Back to the actual case: applying the regulation of agency to the GM dispute, the bankruptcy court held that the secured party did not authorize the termination of the financing statement associated with the term loan. The termination record was consequently ineffective, the security interest from the term loan was improved at that time of bankruptcy, and therefore the security interest is not preventable on these grounds. The belief granting summary judgment in favor of JPMorgan examines the authorization problem in great depth and this Credit Slips post can not do the thinking justice; interested readers can and should examine it for themselves. As noted above, however, the court qualified your choice for direct appeal to the Second Circuit, and the creditors’ committee has submitted an appeal, with a record of problems here. Surely I will perhaps not be alone in staying updated.
See how big of a deal this really is. A client that is rude for you onetime on the phone may be dismissed. Everybody has a poor day from time to time. A coworker who is simply annoying may be dismissed or retrained to affect the annoying behavior off. If it is a big deal, then you definitely go forward.
Never stoop to their degree. Yelling? That is maybe not appropriate in a company location. Talking behind someone’s back? No good. They’ll speak poorly about you to someone else, if someone will let you speak poorly about someone else. The exception to this is if you’re reporting a particular incident to that particular person’s manager. Then give the facts and leave emotion out.
Do not dismiss bullying. This does not mean worrying about every incident. Should you choose that, you’ll be defined as the issue. Instead, deal with the individual directly. For example, “Jill, I can see you’re disappointed. I’ll be pleased to speak with you”, If you are ready to speak in a normal voice. Then turn and disappear. Walking away could be the key. Someone is needed by a screaming bully to scream out. With no market, she fails. Ask the magic question. “Can you clarify?” This is effective for the largely female approach to attempting to eliminate somebody through subtle methods. When Jill is spreading negative things about you among your colleagues, you go up to Jill and say, “Jill, I recognize that you told Stanley that I was not effective at handling the Jones bill. Could you please explain what you meant by that?” It’s not just a confrontational question in and of itself, therefore Jill has little recourse for criticism. But it makes it clear that you’ll not endure it and that you’re alert to what she’s done.
Consider if you should be the problem. Up to we all want to genuinely believe that we’re good, honest, pleasant hard workers, sometimes we are the issue. It is likely that there surely is something you’re doing, if you are repeatedly having problems with bosses, colleagues and customers. If that’s the case, you need to assess if you can transform or if you should move into an alternative job or working environment that works better for you. There’s no one model that works for everybody.
Ask “How may I change?” In the place of “can you make her change?” Make sure you ask from the standpoint of what changes you can make, if you are in times that you can’t handle yourself and you desire to head to your employer or HR. You can’t make someone else change, but your own behavior can be changed by you. And any knowledgeable manager/HR person will have a way to grab from your request if the person who you are having problems with could be the problem. But this keeps the “problem child” label off your forehead. Plus, you are able to frequently make great changes in your working environment by changing your own behavior.
