Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A New Model for Auto Supplier DIP Financing?
Without any reservation, it is safe to say that insolvency crisis facing the U.S. auto industry ' from myriad Tier 2 suppliers right up to the legacy-burdened OEMs ' has become the cause c'l'bre of the professional restructuring community, and for objectively good reason. In this year alone, at least eight parts makers (among them, Collins & Aikman Corp., Meridian Automotive Systems, Inc., Tower Automotive, Inc., Jernberg Industries, Inc., Harvard Industries, Inc., Jacobs Industries, Inc., and Delphi Corp.) filed for Chapter 11 relief. And many industry experts believe that these cases represent merely a harbinger of even bigger things to come. See, eg, Whiteman L: GM Could Seize the Opportunity. TheDeal.com (Oct. 10, 2005) (reporting that Bank of America Securities LLC analyst Ronald Tadross raised the odds of a GM bankruptcy from 10% to 30% following Delphi's Chapter 11 filing); Benson MD, Houdek TA: Automotive OEM and Tier 1 Consolidation ' Tip of the Iceberg. (Stout Risius Ross, Inc. Client Advisory) (2005); Houlihan, Lokey, Howard & Zukin, Inc.: Automotive Supplier Quarterly Update at 1 (Second Quarter 2005).
As more and more of the industry's Tier 1 and 2 players progress towards or work through major restructurings, the availability of financing for ongoing operations has become a critical concern, especially in the face of high materials costs and unusually burdensome OEM traditions (like requiring suppliers to bear crushing tooling and other ramp-up capital expenditures for months or even years in advance of new product launches). Within these parameters, bank financing is not always a given.
Collins & Aikman Corp.
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?