Recharacterization: The Hidden Risks
September 11, 2003
As described last month, the lease is the second element of the tripartite lease transaction. (The tripartite transaction in question consists of two elements and three parties: the first element involves the transfer of equipment from a supplier to a finance lessor, and the second element consists of the lease of such equipment from the finance lessor to the lessee with a supplier support guarantee.) The hidden recharacterization risk is embedded in the first element, that is the transfer of title of the equipment from the supplier to the finance lessor. Depending upon the nature and extent of a supplier guarantee that may be required to support the lease in these tripartite transactions, this transfer may be considered by a reviewing court as a loan instead of a sale.
'Vessel Financing': Section 1110 Cast Adrift
September 11, 2003
Section 1110 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. ' 1110, provides a special exemption from the automatic stay provisions of the Code, permitting a lessor to take possession of certain equipment 60 days after the lessee files for bankruptcy. This obtains unless the lessee's trustee performs the lessee's obligations, and cures all pre-bankruptcy defaults within the 60-day period. Lessors of aircraft are familiar with the myriad cases that have interpreted the application of Section 1110 to such equipment (see Section 1110(a)(3)(A)(i)).
IN THE MARKETPLACE
September 11, 2003
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Recharacterization Risks: Beware!
September 11, 2003
To the unwary, Revised Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code may pose significant risks. The Article is intended to cover all transactions, <i>regardless of form</i>, that in economic substance create a security interest. Using this broad policy mandate, courts have frequently disregarded many different transaction forms that, on their face, were documented to appear to be outside the scope of Revised Article 9. When this occurs the party that is deemed a secured lender in the recharacterized transaction will face losing substantial rights — unless that party complied with Article 9's perfection rules, which typically require the filing of a financing statement.
O (Why) Canada? The Ontario Court of Appeal Speaks in Rare Franchising Decision
September 11, 2003
<i>Part 1 of a 2-part series.</i> Why should U.S. franchisors care about Canada and Canadian franchise law? Savvy franchisors realize that Canada's population is about the same as California's, and that the tastes of many Canadians are similar to (and molded) by their American counterparts. Also, U.S. franchisors' investment in Canada is facilitated under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Investment Canada Act. While there are certainly similarities between the United States and Canada in the law respecting business-format franchising and trademarks, there are some major differences as well — some subtle; others not so subtle.
IN THE MARKETPLACE
September 10, 2003
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news and cases from around the country.
Kmart Bankruptcy: Lessons for Lessors and Secured Parties
September 10, 2003
One of the most fundamental and critical principles that enables the equipment leasing industry to function on a day-to-day basis is commercial certainty ' certainty in expectations regarding financing; certainty in the meaning of documentation; and reliance on the certainty of the application of legal principles that will be brought to bear in the event of a lease default or bankruptcy.
IN THE MARKETPLACE
September 02, 2003
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
American Indians and Lease Transactions
September 02, 2003
There are more than 500 nationally recognized Indian tribes in the United States, and as a general rule, state civil laws do not apply to transactions in which they are involved (whether on reservations or not).
Post-Petition Rent Obligations: Use and Occupancy v. Due Date
September 02, 2003
Confused about when a real property landlord or equipment lessor can commence charging post-petition rental payments? Does a debtor's obligation under Section 365(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, (hereinafter, the 'Code') to timely perform all obligations arising after the order for relief (or under Section 365(d)(10), 60 days after the order of relief), mean those obligations that 'arise' by virtue of actual post-petition use of the property as opposed to obligations that arise by virtue of the 'due date' of the rental payment by contract or invoice?
