Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Features

In the Marketplace

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.

Double Duty: UCC Definition of Goods Same for ' 503(b)(9)

By Francis J. Lawall & Nina M. Varughese

As most practitioners know, the Bankruptcy Code imposes a specific priority scheme that controls the payment of claims. The higher the priority of a particular claim, the more likely it is to be paid. Generally, secured claims are paid first from the specific collateral backing that claim, followed by administrative priority claims, unsecured priority claims and then general unsecured claims. Equity takes last, assuming there is anything left.

Heightened Pleading Standards Apply to Avoidance Complaints

Paul Rubin & John August

Parties to preference and fraudulent transfer actions should pay careful attention to the decision in <i>Angell, Trustee v. Ber Care, Inc. f/k/a PPS, Inc., et al. (In re Caremerica, Inc.)</i>. There, Bankruptcy Judge J. Rich Leonard dismissed certain avoidance claims and upheld others asserted by a Chapter 7 trustee. <i>Caremerica</i> provides useful guidance regarding whether particular elements of a preference or fraudulent transfer claim have been adequately pled.

Taxpayer Victory in Con Edison LILO Shocks IRS

Philip H. Spector

In <i>Consolidated Edison Company v. United States</i>, the taxpayer's tax treatment of a LILO transaction was upheld by the court, and all tax benefits claimed by the taxpayer were sustained. Naturally, some muckraking columnists hurried to criticize the Con Edison decision, expressing disappointment that the court actually applied historic leasing case law to a well-developed factual record. Despite their whining, the case demonstrates that the IRS (and the muckrakers) was wrong to treat all LILO and SILO transactions as though they were some prepackaged tax-shelter commodity. Each case turns on its facts, and the taxpayer wins in a properly chosen and argued case.

Features

Real Property Law

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

In-depth analysis of recent rulings.

Landlord & Tenant

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Analysis of recent key cases.

Development

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Recent important litigation.

Features

Can a Lender's Own Acts Void Its Title Policy?

Marvin Bagwell

It has long been recognized that claims go up in an economic downturn just as the underwriters' ability to pay decreases. But is there more going on in this new era of strict scrutiny for title claims? Is the evidence merely anecdotal?

Features

Index

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Everything in this issue, listed in an easy-to-read format.

Features

NJ & CT News

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Recent rulings from neighboring states.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next Frontier
    Most experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.
    Read More ›
  • In the Spotlight
    On May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug &amp; Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.
    Read More ›