Part Two of a Two-Part Series
Last month's installment discussed recharacterization and the factors that bankruptcy courts have considered in determining whether what is labeled debt is really equity or what is labeled equity is really debt.
Under the Bankruptcy Code, whether a lease is a true lease or a disguised security agreement also has serious consequences. If a lease is a true lease, and the debtor in possession has need of the equipment or other leased property, the lessor is entitled to receive all the payments due under the contract. If a lease is not a true lease but is a disguised security agreement, the lender is only entitled to the lesser of what is owed and the property's value, which could be significantly less than the totality of the lease payments. The balance will be treated as a general unsecured claim. Further, the creditor will only be entitled to the value of the collateral if it perfected its lien. If it did not perfect, its entire claim will be treated as a general secured claim (which is why informational filings of UCC-1 forms are recommended in lease transactions). Even if it did perfect, payment could be delayed until a plan is confirmed and even then stretched out over the length of the plan as opposed to the terms required by the original contract. For these reasons, usually the debtor will argue that the lease is a disguised security agreement, and the creditor will argue that the lease is a true lease.
Part Two of a Two-Part Series
Last month's installment discussed recharacterization and the factors that bankruptcy courts have considered in determining whether what is labeled debt is really equity or what is labeled equity is really debt.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
An annual tradition continues as we present the responses to our Legalweek question. For 2026, it was "where are we with prompting"?
The volume and sophistication of work hitting law firm marketing departments is accelerating. That moves the burden from responding to being ready: ready with differentiated positioning, ready with competitive intelligence, ready to get a compelling pitch to the right client before a formal process even begins. That requires more sophisticated output, produced faster, by teams that are already stretched past capacity.
In categories where products are difficult to differentiate on performance, and that describes most of the AI industry today, customers do not choose on features, they choose on trust. Brand integrity, in those markets, is a material business asset.
The annals of copyright decisions could provide a reasonably representative catalog of what our culture has been up to over the past 200 years. A Feb. 3 decision from the Southern District of New York is a case in point. It involves a sex-trafficking conspiracy, Tweets attacking a troubled crypto firm, and a claimed transfer of copyright ownership through a restitution order in a criminal case, all over an undercurrent of competing First Amendment and victim-privacy concerns.
Matthew McConaughey secured eight federal trademark registrations covering his voice and iconic catchphrases in a novel legal strategy aimed at combating AI’s unauthorized use of his voice and likeness. The move signals an important evolution in the power dynamics between talent/brands and the companies providing generative AI tools.