Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Features
While franchise disclosure documents and their attendant agreements are the "glue" applied to the initial franchisor/franchisee relationship, the question of "who constructed the paperwork" is both a touchy and legitimate concern for those immersed in the franchise industry.
Features
The American Arbitration Association is reporting that its pilot program to reduce commercial arbitration fees has been popularly received, and AAA is increasing its promotion of the new fee structure. The program began in July 2009 and has been utilized in 1,000 to 2,000 disputes to date, reflecting claims totaling nearly $3 billion, according to India Johnson, an AAA senior vice president. The number of those disputes related to franchising is unknown.
Features
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
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.
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.
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.
