Form vs. Function: When Is a Lease a 'True Lease'? The Seventh Circuit Applies Substance over Form in United Airlines v. HSBC Bank
December 02, 2005
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.
Revised Article 9's Assignment Provisions: An Analysis
December 02, 2005
Chapter 4 of Revised Article 9, titled "Rights of Third Parties," deals with several issues affecting the assignment of accounts, leases, and other contract rights. See, in particular, Sections 9-403 to 9-409. These sections replace former Sections 9-206 and 9-318 and part of Section 2A-303. This article summarizes some of the key provisions of Chapter 4 of Revised Article 9, compares these provisions to former Article 9, and describes a few recent cases under this Chapter. Note that different rules apply in a consumer transaction or if the account debtor is an individual who incurred the obligation primarily for personal, family or household purposes; this article does not address these issues. In addition, this article does not address the assignment of a health care insurance receivable.
In the Marketplace
December 02, 2005
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
A Primer on Terrorism Insurance
December 02, 2005
The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act ("TRIA"), 15 USC §6701 <i>et. seq.</i>, designed to make terrorism insurance readily available to property owners, is scheduled to sunset on Dec. 31, 2005. If the Act is not extended and the cost of terrorism insurance becomes prohibitive, lenders and borrowers may once again find themselves embroiled in controversy over the question of whether governing loan documents require such insurance.
The Leasing Hotline
December 02, 2005
Highlights of the latest commercial cases from around the country.
Is Your Company in Compliance with the Anti-Terrorism Laws?
December 02, 2005
The fourth anniversary of the tragedy in New York has come and gone, and our country remains on alert in an effort to prevent another terrorist attack. While we see frequent warnings published in the news and through industry groups, the heightened awareness those warnings generate does not put our companies in compliance with the laws requiring our participation in the fight against terrorism. This article examines the anti-terrorism laws that affect our industry and outlines best practices for compliance with those laws. It also provides information on enforcement activities that have occurred. It provides a basis for evaluating whether or not your company is in compliance with the anti-terrorism laws.
Negotiating Alignment, Not Agreement: A Guide to Effective Tenant Negotiations
December 02, 2005
What do negotiators fear most? Failure, being manipulated and being second-guessed. Why do negotiators fail and why are they manipulated or second-guessed? Often, it's lack of adequate preparation and disregard for the issues, purposes and concerns of the other side. A lack of internal alignment can lead to confusion and that dreaded second-guessing. A well-prepared negotiator can be manipulation proof, avoid the second-guessing and achieve valuable results.
The Law of Custom and Usage Evidence in Insurance and Reinsurance Contracts
December 01, 2005
Reinsurance and insurance contracts would be thousands of pages long if they explicitly defined every possible term, however mundane, or if they anticipated every possible contingency, however remote. Fortunately, (or perhaps unfortunately) for the drafters of these contracts, the U.S. legal system typically employs a more streamlined model. That is, parties commit to an agreement with the understanding that courts and other adjudicatory bodies may play a role in filling in contractual "gaps" and giving meaning to indefinite or indeterminate contractual terms. <i>Cf. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Schumacher Elec. Corp.</i>, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14318 (7th Cir. 2005). Although there are a number of methods by which a court can interpret a contract, the importation of custom and usage evidence plays a special role in illuminating insurance and reinsurance contracts. This article explores whether and when courts will admit such evidence, and it divides into three sections: First, the article explains the rules that courts will employ when they determine whether and when to admit custom and usage evidence; second, it considers the effect of integration clauses on the possible importation of custom and usage evidence; and, third, it provides several practical suggestions for a party seeking to import custom and usage evidence.
Challenging Insurers' Efforts to Obtain Insureds' Privileged Communications
December 01, 2005
Insureds embroiled in litigation with underlying claimants frequently are confronted with demands from their insurers that can place their litigation position at risk. One issue that often arises is whether an insured must and should provide requested privileged materials to its insurer in connection with the insurer's coverage investigation or in coverage litigation. Where the insurer has accepted the insured's defense of litigation and thus its interests appear to be aligned with the insured in a successful resolution of the underlying matter, the insured may have difficulty in refusing to provide certain materials. However, as is often the case, 1) an insurer will reserve rights and then seek all information relevant to the underlying matter, regardless of its privileged status, or 2) deny coverage and seek that information in the context of coverage litigation. Insureds should be aware of possible risks that can be created if they comply with requests for privileged information, and that despite the insurers' claims of a "common interest" or that the privileged information is "at issue," significant case law protects these materials from production.
