Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Restructuring AMERCO
When AMERCO, the parent company of U-Haul International, emerged from bankruptcy protection in March 2004, it secured an unusual place in history — exiting Chapter 11 with a global capital restructuring that resulted in zero dilution in shareholder value. Alvarez & Marsal, which was retained as the company's financial advisors, executed one of the most successful restructurings on record by developing and implementing a complex and consensual plan that required significant negotiations with a diverse group of debt and equity holders. By the end of the swift process, AMERCO's common equity value had increased by over 350% and nearly $300 million in value was restored to the investments of preferred stock and unsecured debt holders.
Best known for the market position and brand recognition of its subsidiary U-Haul, the dominant player in the self-move and self-storage market, AMERCO is also the holding company of AMERCO Real Estate Company, which owns 90% of the company's real estate assets, Oxford Life Insurance Company, which specializes in providing consumer-oriented life, annuity, disability income and health insurance products, and Republic Western Insurance Company, a property and casualty insurance company.
In addition to its operating subsidiaries, AMERCO utilized a special purpose entity (SAC) as a vehicle to finance a portion of its expansion into the self-storage industry. Under this arrangement, self-storage properties are owned by SAC and managed by U-Haul for a fee. SAC financed the purchase of the self-storage properties through combination of senior loans from third-party lenders and borrowing from AMERCO.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?