Financing deals have become increasingly complicated as parties attempt to raise capital and take advantage of accounting and tax incentives. These transactions often face scrutiny when one party files for bankruptcy. During a Chapter 11 reorganization, a debtor must use all tools at its disposal to best restructure its obligations. In contrast, a creditor must work to ensure it receives the best possible return. The term "lease" is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code. Due to this lack of a clear definition, creditors and debtors will often attempt to recharacterize agreements between the parties. In this context, a secured creditor or debtor may argue that a "lease" is actually a disguised secured financing. In the converse, a party could also argue a secured financing is actually a "true lease." This is due to the Bankruptcy Code's different treatment of secured debt and leases. Depending on the factual scenario, this differing treatment could significantly change the parties' obligations. This article reviews the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' recent decision in United Airlines, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 416 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2005). In this decision, authored by Judge Easterbrook, the court held that it must look to the substance of a transaction and beyond the label given by the parties to determine whether it is a "true lease."
- January 03, 2006James A. Timko
In general, the proposed rules will increase awareness of the discovery issues that are unique to electronic discovery and will require that the lawyers, the parties and the court focus early on the format in which electronic data will be produced in federal actions. Also, absent unusual circumstances, the new rules will protect parties from sanctions for failure to produce electronic data lost by routine, good faith loss of data and will protect parties from the need to produce inaccessible data under some circumstances.
January 03, 2006Mary MackEmployer cannot make assumptions in "regarded as disabled" casesThe Fifth Circuit has ruled that an employer may not maintain a blanket policy to deny…
January 03, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Earlier this year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a set of questions and answers about cancer in the workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The Q&A does not contain much in the way of new information, but rather gives examples that help illustrate the position the EEOC will take on issues regarding cancer as a disability. Since these are the types of issues that often puzzle human resources managers ' and land on the desk of in-house counsel ' the EEOC's Q&A serves to provide some assistance on how to handle these issues.January 03, 2006Sarah A. KellySuccessful businesses want to protect their proprietary information, whether it is a "secret ingredient" or a customer list. Many companies seek to achieve this goal by requiring that all employees sign a uniform "non-compete" agreement in an effort to reduce the risk of economic harm when the employment relationship ends and an employee goes to work for a competitor. Businesses often are surprised, however, to learn that the agreements that they were counting on for protection will not be enforced by a court. This unpleasant result can be avoided through careful drafting up front. The key to drafting an enforceable agreement is to remember that there is no "one-size-fits all" document. The laws governing non-compete agreements vary from state to state, and understanding the nuances among the states will help attorneys with the drafting process.
January 03, 2006Monica L. Goebel and Thomas M. StanekThere has been much recent press about the USA Patriot Act, and in particular the seemingly unlimited power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to issue National Security Letters (NSLs) as part of its efforts to combat terrorism (under 18 U.S.C. '2709). NSLs are a form of administrative subpoena issued by the FBI upon self-certification and are shrouded in a cloak of secrecy. Specifically, Section 2709 permits the FBI to demand the production of certain records where the FBI certifies that the materials are sought to "protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." On a more controversial note, Section 2709 also contains a gag provision, which prohibits the recipient of an NSL from ever disclosing that the FBI has sought or obtained information pursuant to an NSL. To date, Section 2709 has received little judicial scrutiny, with reported controversies focusing on NSLs issued to Internet Service Providers and libraries. Now, NSLs are being issued to private corporations, with the FBI demanding the production of records regarding employees.
January 03, 2006Charles B. Sklarsky and Monica R. PinciakDoes a firm's enthusiasm for hourly rate variants correlate with a similarly higher than average interest in true alternative billing? How about the reverse? Judge for yourself from the following tables, derived from reported results of the recent National Law Journal survey of billing practices at 300 firms.
January 03, 2006Joe DanowskyBefore you run off to copyright your Web site, as advocated in Michael McCoy's accompanying article, you may want to check that it's original! Consider these observations of Ms. Tursi, abridged from her commentary in A&FP's sibling newsletter Marketing the Law Firm.
January 03, 2006Elizabeth AnneAn often-overlooked component of a company's intellectual property portfolio is the company Web site. This is especially true in the fast-paced world of technology firms, whose primary emphasis is usually core technology in the form of patents or trade secrets. The Web site, as a matter of course, is the most innocuous of assets, but it's an asset nonetheless.
January 03, 2006Michael G. McCoyA&FP reviewers rated Ed Wesemann's feature article from "much to agree with" to "excellent" to "super," but three Board members had differing views on specific points. The following exchange between Ed, John Alber and Jim Davidson is followed by a comment received later from Ed Poll. Yet another perspective on the question of associate profitability is being formulated by another discussant as an upcoming article.
January 03, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |