Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Lessors' Damages: Measures and Entitlement
Andersons, Inc. v. Lafarge North America, Inc.
, 2012 WL 5259149 (U.S.Ct.App. 6th Cir. Oct. 25, 2012) (not for publication)
After a lessee returned 200 railcars to a lessor at the end of a 10-year lease, the lessor deemed the cars to require substantial repairs in order to bring them into the condition required by the lease and, after being unable to agree with the lessee as to the repair costs, sued the lessee for damages consisting of the cost of repair, holdover rent, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees. The Court of Appeals affirms the District Court's awards of the cost of repair and holdover rent and its denial of prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees. Of greatest interest is the description of the District Court's reasoning regarding the cost of repairs (disregarding the highest and lowest estimates of repair costs and averaging the two intermediate estimates) and the discussion of the award of holdover rent. With respect to the latter, the lease gave the lessor the right to demand holdover rent at the rate of one and one-half times the lease rate if the cars were not delivered in the specified condition within 30 days of lease expiration.
The court finds that because
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower courts' judgment that a "transfer made … in connection with a securities contract … by a qualifying financial institution" was entitled "to the protection of ... §546 (e)'s safe harbor ...."