In re World Auxiliary Power Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
303 F.3d 1120 (2002)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
World Auxiliary Power (WAP) and two related corporations owned copyrights in drawings, technical manuals, blueprints, and software used to make modifications to airplanes. These companies obtained financing from Silicon Valley Bank (Silicon Valley), which was secured by all of the companies’ assets, including the copyrights. Silicon Valley filed a financing statement, recording this security interest with the California Secretary of State. The companies did not register any of the copyrights with the United States Copyright Office. WAP and the other companies separately filed for bankruptcy simultaneously. Through a series of transactions, Aerocon Engineering (Aerocon) and Airweld purchased the copyrights and the right of the bankruptcy trustee to sue to avoid Silicon Valley’s security interest as tenants in common. The relationship between Airweld and Aerocon dissolved, and Aerocon filed an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy to avoid the security interest of Silicon Valley, which had been transferred to Airweld after a foreclosure and a series of sales. The bankruptcy court determined that Silicon Valley had perfected its security interest and granted summary judgment to Silicon Valley. Aerocon appealed to the district court, which affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court. Aerocon then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kleinfeld, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.