Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This is the first part in a series dealing with the subject of bankruptcy strategies and considerations for commercial landlords, tenants, lenders and real estate investors. The subject matter of each part of this series of brief alerts is complex and what is intended is to highlight some of the key issues the reader should consider in connection with the subjects discussed.
This article examines anti-assignment clauses from the landlord's viewpoint; specifically, anti-assignment clauses similar to the following: "tenant shall not, without the prior written consent of landlord, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, assign this lease or any interest hereunder, or sublet the leased premises or any part thereof."
Features
In <i>Ades and Berg Group Investors v. Breeden</i> (<i>In re Ades and Berg Group Investors</i>), the court of appeals affirmed a decision below refusing to impose a constructive trust on proceeds from a settlement of reinsurance claims that were paid to a Chapter 11 debtor. According to the Second Circuit, "retention by the bankruptcy estate of assets that, absent bankruptcy, would go to a particular creditor is not inherently unjust."
Financial advisers, investment bankers, lawyers and other professionals in reorganization cases will be happy with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down on Jan. 6, 2009: <i>In re Smart World Technologies, LLC.</i>
<i>In re SemCrude, L.P.</i> is a departure from the long-standing assumption that a multi-party netting agreement among affiliates would be upheld in bankruptcy if enforceable under applicable non-bankruptcy law. This article provides an analysis of the decision, the procedural status and its potential impact, and recommendations for minimizing the potential negative implications.
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
This article provides a historical overview of California's "genuine dispute" doctrine, a summary of the general principles applicable under the doctrine, and a discussion of the recent legal developments in the doctrine.
In a series of recent cases addressing coverage for contaminated foods and similar losses, jurisdictions have split on the availability of insurance. Courts excluding coverage have relied on language traditionally used to exclude business and product-related losses, including the "your product" and "impaired property" exclusions. Other courts have rejected the application of these exclusions if it is unclear that the damage was to the insured's product and if the cause of the damage is not inherent in the product itself.