Commercial Law

The use of bankruptcy to protect an individual's home from foreclosure is sufficiently commonplace that practitioners would be well advised to understand the foreclosure process in their state and, in particular, when that process will be deemed completed for purposes of section 1322. This article explains why.

Troubled businesses also may have turned to the distressed debt market instead of filing for bankruptcy protection due to recent changes to the Bankruptcy Code, which made bankruptcy a more complicated, expensive and uncertain alternative. As a result, when the next wave of Chapter 11 filings comes, hedge funds and other distressed debt investors will act to protect their unique interests and strategies, which will bring new dynamics to bankruptcy cases.

In a disappointing announcement released on Aug. 6, 2007, Dale Cantone, chairman of the Franchise and Business Opportunity Project Group of the North American Securities Administrators Association, informed the franchise bar that the state authorities that participate in the coordinated review program ('Coordinated Review') have suspended the program until further notice. The announcement also stated the franchise administrators would re-evaluate whether to reintroduce the program after July 1, 2008.

By now, everyone seriously involved in the practice of franchise law is aware of Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 2007 WL 1835892 (S. Ct. June 28, 2007). The Supreme Court in Leegin held that vertical resale price maintenance is no longer unlawful in and of itself. Although hailing the decision as overruling a nearly 100-year prohibition on minimum price fixing, the pundits writing in the wake of Leegin have nevertheless hedged their bets on just how revolutionary the decision is. Their constant mantra is this: Leegin does not open the door to unrestrained resale price maintenance, but rather changes the rules under which courts will evaluate sales agreements setting minimum prices. No longer will courts treat them as unlawful per se; they will now evaluate their legality under something called 'the rule of reason.' If a court (or jury) concludes that an agreement establishing a minimum price is an 'unreasonable restraint of trade,' then the supplier has violated the antitrust laws. If the threat of treble damages from such a finding isn't sobering enough, writers warn us that courts may interpret state 'baby Sherman Acts' as still making resale price maintenance unlawful per se, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court says.

Product liability plaintiffs are facing ever-growing barriers to filing suit in state and federal courts. Tort reformers have won significant victories at the state level, including restrictions on asbestos claims and caps on punitive damages. At the federal level, the Class Action Fairness Act ('CAFA') has allowed for easier removal of state class actions to federal courts. In addition to the impact of CAFA, a number of states have enacted legislation that makes it more difficult to file class actions in their courts. Several states also have initiated 'venue reform,' which limits the ability of out-of-state plaintiffs to file lawsuits in those states.

Last month's installment discussed how a real estate attorney should create a checklist to bring a transaction from concept to fruition. Part Two of this series addresses compliance issues, dissemination of information, and the level of detail of the checklist.

Some commercial landlords consider indemnification clauses in leases to constitute mere 'legal boilerplate' that do not merit attention from a business perspective. Some lawyers, feeling pressure to minimize the length of lease documents, may seize upon this clause as an opportunity to save space. As a result, it is not uncommon to encounter abbreviated indemnification clauses. At first glance, the language appears suitable. However, when put to the test, these 'lite' clauses often leave landlords unsatisfied. This article demonstrates the value of 'kicking it up a notch' by including ingredients called for in the recipe but often left out of the mix.

Earlier this year, Baker Hughes Inc. ascended to the top of an exclusive and prominent list, but it is one on which few companies would want to be mentioned. On April 26, 2007, the Texas-based oil field products and services company announced that it was settling a federal probe alleging that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ('FCPA'), and that it would pay fines and penalties in excess of $44 million ' the largest combined punishment under that law. It was truly one for the record books ' at least for the time being.