Spam Gets Canned Federal Anti-Spam Law to Take Effect January 1
December 01, 2003
More than 35 states have enacted laws regulating spam in some form or fashion. Legitimate marketers and businesses adapted to these various state laws, gravitating toward a fairly uniform best practices model, which stopped short of the sort of true "opt-in only" model strongly preferred by consumer and anti-spam groups. Mailers could be fairly confident that they would avoid liability under state spam laws and not overly alienate Internet service providers (ISPs) or their own customers by simply including valid contact information, honoring "opt-out" requests, providing accurate headers and routing information, using nondeceptive subject lines and (in a few states) labeling the messages as advertisements. This widely followed compliance strategy became unworkable in September 2003, however, when California instead enacted a true "opt-in" approach to commercial e-mail marketing. Marketers were faced with a January 2004 compliance deadline and sweeping new prohibitions on marketing to or from any California e-mail address unless the sender had the recipient's "direct consent" or had a "pre-existing business relationship" with the recipient (and the recipient had not "opted out" of such mailings). In response, legitimate marketers aggressively lobbied Congress to accelerate final passage of federal legislation to pre-empt at least the more disruptive aspects of California's new law prior to its effective date. Congress responded to the call, and the CAN SPAM Act of 2003 was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Dec. 16, 2003.
Taking Assignments of Equipment Leases: An Analysis of an Acceptable Documentation Package
December 01, 2003
Like many financial products, equipment leases can be bought and sold. The lease assignment market has become increasingly active and complex in recent years, despite the economic downturn of the early 21st century. This article highlights the type of documentation that should generally be required when a broker or other originator of leases (the "Originator") assigns leases to a funding bank (the "Funder").
Landlord & Tenant
November 30, 2003
Recent decisions of importance to you and your practice.
Index
November 30, 2003
A comprehensive list of key cases discussed in this issue.
Lease Drafting and Negotiation: A Checklist of Easily Overlooked Details
November 01, 2003
Not surprisingly, most of the time we spend negotiating leases is devoted to discussions of significant, fairly predictable aspects of the landlord/tenant relationship: the fundamental business terms of the deal, details of business terms that were not fully settled before the lawyers became involved, and a variety of legal issues from assignment to zoning. As we all know, these substantive negotiations can sometimes consume more billable hours than our clients would prefer and (if we are fortunate) there are always other deals waiting in line demanding our attention. If we focus only on the major points, though, we may miss some meaningful issues and potential traps, for both the principals and their counsel, lurking in the mundane, "boilerplate" provisions of our leases. This article will explore several such provisions, not necessarily in order of importance. Although some specific suggestions are made and some sample provisions are included, the primary intent of this discussion is to provide a checklist of easily overlooked items to be examined.
The Leasing Hotline
November 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
Tenant Concerns When Drafting Accessibility and Visibility Protection Provisions
November 01, 2003
Often in leases, particularly retail leases, the tenant seeks to protect the accessibility and visibility of the area immediately in front of its store location. For that purpose, landlords and tenants create language that prevents the landlord from placing any retail operation, structure or obstruction in front of the tenant's store within a certain number of feet or a designated area in the common area (often referred to as a "Restricted Area"). However, very often due to the vagueness of the language included in this type of a provision, as well as due to the limited nature of remedies available in this type of a provision, the tenant does not receive the type of accessibility and visibility protection that it thought it had negotiated. As a result, tenants should consider the following factors when negotiating accessibility and visibility protection provisions in their retail leases: (i) include a picture or site plan designating the "Restricted Area"; (ii) identify any specific remedies attributable solely to this provision; and (iii) limit competing uses for stores in the Restricted Area, if the existing retail tenants in the Restricted Area ever relocate from their existing locations or vacate the retail facility.
The Chapter 11 Giveback: Preventing Preferential Transfers When Negotiating Settlement Agreements with Defaulting Tenants
November 01, 2003
You negotiated a settlement for your landlord client with a tenant that had not paid rent for a number of months, and, as part of the settlement, you recently received all the defaulted payments. Shortly thereafter, however, the tenant commenced bankruptcy proceedings. Moreover, accompanying the notice of commencement of bankruptcy was a summons and complaint against your client in which the debtor/tenant seeks the recovery of every settlement payment made, claiming they were preferential transfers.
In the Spotlight: Request in Advance Master Landlord's Consent to Sublease
November 01, 2003
In many instances a prospective sublandlord requires the consent of its master landlord in order to enter into a sublease. Virtually all well-crafted subleases are expressly contingent upon the receipt by the parties of a written consent by the master landlord to the sublease.
Dueling Provisions: Creditor Prevails in Showdown Between Bankruptcy Code Sections
November 01, 2003
A Missouri bankruptcy court has permitted a creditor to take possession of spare aircraft parts and equipment from a debtor despite the fact that the creditor failed to perfect its security interest in the equipment. In an issue of first impression in the Sixth Circuit, the court held that under the plain language of Section 1110 of the Bankruptcy Code, a creditor, as a conditional vendor, had a right to take possession of the collateral pursuant to its agreement with the debtor, and that this right was not limited or otherwise affected by any other section of the Code (including Section 544) or by any power of the court. <i>Vanguard Airlines, Inc. v. International Aero Components, Inc.,</i> 295 B.R. 908 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mo.,2003).
