A New Reality for Lessors in Synthetic Leasing Transactions
In a discussion of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, in the November 2003 issue of this newsletter, Jeffrey Ellis wrote that: "accountants will be struggling to implement the guidance in FIN 46 for a while longer." The multiple FASB staff positions issued, ongoing public comment, and lengthy discussions at FASB meetings concerning changes to existing guidance on consolidation of variable interest entities, continuing almost a full year after issuance of the rules, confirm his conclusion. The effective date for certain applications of FIN 46 was delayed until Dec. 31, 2003, but all of the Big Four firms continued to clamor for guidance. With that new deadline only days away, FASB issued FIN 46-R on Dec. 24.
Court Negates Revised Article 9
The law of consignment sales of goods — under which merchandise is delivered by a seller (a "consignor") to another person (a "consignee") to hold for sale to a third party — has long been a source of confusion and uncertainty for both consignors (seeking to protect their rights to their consigned goods) and creditors of the consignee (seeking to satisfy their claims against the consignee and its assets). Prior to the enactment in 2001 of revised Article 9 ("Revised Article 9") of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the treatment of consignment sales had straddled both Article 2 of the UCC, which covers the sale of goods, and Article 9 of the UCC, which covers the creation and perfection of a security interest in goods. The drafters of Revised Article 9 sought to eliminate this confusion by removing all regulation of consignment sales from UCC Article 2, and lodging all regulation of consignments under the UCC (to the extent not covered by common law) squarely within UCC Article 9. However, the recent Bankruptcy Court decision in the case of In re Morgansen's Ltd., 302 B.R. 784 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2003) would, if sustained on appeal, negate many of the improvements introduced by Revised Article 9 and wreak havoc on the treatment of consignment sales of consumer goods and other "true" consignments not expressly covered by Revised Article 9.
The Evolution of a Lease Provision: Sublease and Assignment
In the absence of a lease provision restricting subleasing and assignment, common law permits a tenant to freely sublease its leased premises or assign its leasehold interest in the leased premises. In order to provide for maximum landlord control over a tenant's ability to sublease or assign its leasehold interest, while at the same time balancing the need of tenants for an exit strategy, modern forms of leases contain extensive assignment and sublease provisions. This article traces the manner in which those provisions have evolved over the years.
Vigilance and Planning Are Necessary in Bankruptcy Matters
Two recent decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit have attracted the attention of leasing lawyers. Both of those cases demonstrate that landlords and tenants alike may be taken by surprise by the operation of the Bankruptcy Code.
In the Spotlight
Tenants that seek the future ability to sublease a portion of their space frequently settle for language to the effect that the landlord will not unreasonably withhold, delay, or condition its consent to a proposed sublease by the tenant. Unfortunately, this typical language only provides a tenant with minimal protection.
Escalation Wars!
Operating escalation challenges falls into the seasonal category. When economic times are good, commercial tenants pay rent escalations like clockwork. When times are hard, the same tenants -- aided by lease audit consultants working on a contingency basis -- suddenly "discover" hundreds of thousands of dollars in alleged escalation overcharges.
Index
A list of everything you need in this issue.
