Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Clause Of The Month
Long-term services contracts, such as contracts for outsourcing, generally provide the customer only limited rights to terminate. Typically, the customer is permitted to terminate the contract for the vendor's uncured material breach or upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition by or against the vendor. Even if the customer has the right to terminate for convenience, it is often conditioned on the customer's paying a substantial amount.
On its surface, customer's right to terminate upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition by or against the vendor can be a very useful tool, since customer may want to promptly transition the services to a more financially stable service provider. Unfortunately, any right to terminate that is triggered by a bankruptcy filing is unenforceable under the United States Bankruptcy Code (see 11 U.S.C. '355(e)(1)). Therefore, what the customer needs is an early warning system that gives it the right to terminate based on events that are the precursors to a bankruptcy filing. The provision below accomplishes this by triggering the customer's right to terminate when the vendor is in default with respect to various types of indebtedness. It is crucial that termination pursuant to this clause be implemented before a bankruptcy petition is filed by or against the vendor, because once the bankruptcy case is initiated this clause will also be unenforceable. The blank dollar figure is to be determined on a case-by-case basis for each customer-vendor relationship.
Vendor shall immediately notify Customer if Vendor is in default under any agreement, document or instrument relating to any (i) indebtedness for borrowed money owing to any person or entity, (ii) capitalized lease obligations, or (iii) contingent indebtedness in connection with any guarantee, letter of credit, indemnity or similar type of instrument in favor of any person or entity, in each case in an amount in excess of $___________ (each, an 'Indebtedness Default'). Upon the occurrence of an Indebtedness Default that continues for more than the cure period, if any, applicable thereto, Customer may, without any penalty or fee, terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to Vendor.
Bryan Alter is a Senior Associate in the New York office of Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP.
Long-term services contracts, such as contracts for outsourcing, generally provide the customer only limited rights to terminate. Typically, the customer is permitted to terminate the contract for the vendor's uncured material breach or upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition by or against the vendor. Even if the customer has the right to terminate for convenience, it is often conditioned on the customer's paying a substantial amount.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?