Features
Jeffrey P. Bast
&
Kevin M. Eckhardt
For many years, the holder of a stock redemption claim against a company in bankruptcy faced almost certain demotion to the class of interest holders. No matter how long ago the stock redemption occurred, no matter the solvency of the company, and no matter how innocent the holder appeared, any claim for unpaid installments due under a stock redemption agreement was sent to the back of the line. In 1996, the Supreme Court issued a decision that rekindled hope for stock redemption claimants; recent case law, unfortunately, has failed to maintain a uniform front on this issue.
Paul Robeznieks
In today's competitive commercial real estate market, landlords and tenants spend much time and effort to structure lease transactions to add value to their respective portfolios. They each factor into their economic analysis relevant concerns such as rent, construction costs, construction build-out periods, operating expenses and revenue forecasts. An additional factor that should be considered in this process is the cost incurred by both parties to administer the lease obligations during the lease term for ongoing maintenance, repair and replacement items.
Michelle R. Curtis
Recently, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that a letter of intent was binding on the parties. <i>Windsor Development, L.L.C. v. Clearcomm Technologies, Inc., No. 999 (Md.App. filed Aug. 5, 2002).</i> The court granted a summary judgment motion enforcing the provisions of the letter of intent relying on the "plain and unambiguous" language.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
Raymond J. Werner
Security deposits are an age-old form of security for the performance of the tenant's obligations under a lease. In the simplest of transactions, the tenant deposits a fund with the landlord to be used to protect the landlord against the economic consequences of a tenant's default. The amount of the fund is the product of negotiations and usually involves a multiple of the monthly rent payable under the lease. In more sophisticated commercial transactions with other than the most creditworthy of tenants, the landlord wants the tenant to deposit a substantial sum, perhaps a multiple of the yearly rent payable under the lease, especially if the landlord pays for substantial tenant improvements. <p><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Series</i>
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Features
Thomas A. Alston
Imagine getting slapped with a $100,000 past-due tax bill from the state of California several years after you purchased an aircraft, and you don't even live in that state. Think it can't happen? Better think again, as this type of scenario plays out with increasing frequency as California grapples with perennial budget shortages.
Features
Susan Hackett
According to AMR Research, which recently surveyed 60 Fortune 1,000 companies, it is estimated that the Fortune 1,000 will spend $2.5 billion in 2003 alone in costs associated with Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance. How much more will be spent by smaller public companies and by those in the private-company sector is a mystery, but the total costs - in cash, time, consulting fees, lost opportunities, and human resources - will surely be staggering.
Joe Nachbin
Imagine receiving a call from corporate indicating that your captive team has done a wonderful job of providing financing for your manufacturer parent organization. In fact, as a result of this excellent performance the parent company's leverage ratio is reaching the point that its financial rating may be reduced by the rating agencies. This is the type of good news/bad news call most captive managers would rather not receive.
Features
Laurence A. Urgenson
&
Audrey Harris
The headlines reporting multi-million dollar corporate guilty pleas often miss a point widely understood among white-collar practitioners: The driving force behind the corporate plea is often not the merits of the government's charge, but the corporation's need to reach a global settlement resolving administrative and criminal sanctions that could put the company out of business. Considering the role of prosecutorial discretion and the draconian consequences of a corporate conviction, corporations often have little choice but to plead guilty and cooperate with the government. Recently, the feds have raised the ante in this process by defining "cooperation" to include waiving the attorney-client privilege. Thus, corporations and counsel alike are forced into a Hobson's choice where at least partial waiver may be inevitable.
