Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search

We found 1,036 results for "Equipment Leasing Newsletter"...

Circuit Court Win Sets Up Conflict over Bankruptcy Code
A recent circuit court decision regarding the interpretation of section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has set up a conflict between two circuits. On March 15, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion regarding whether bankruptcy debtors are required to cure non-monetary defaults prior to assuming unexpired leases under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. ' 365. The First Circuit found -- expressly contrary to a holding of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- that debtors are not required to cure such defaults, resulting in a split in the circuits over a very widely used section of the code.
Is It a True Lease or a Loan?
The first part of this article, published in last month's issue, addressed the importance of the distinction between true leases and loans and began a detailed analysis of the rules that courts use for state law and bankruptcy purposes to determine the category in which a given transaction belongs. <br>As outlined in part one of this article, courts utilize the Two-Part Test provided in &sect;1-201(37) of the Uniform Commercial Code, and any transaction that satisfies that Two-Part Test creates a security interest as a matter of law. The first prong of the test is satisfied if the lessee does not have the option of terminating the lease early or if any such early termination option requires the lessee to pay the lessor a significant sum. The second prong, which addresses the issues that are most often litigated, is discussed below.
In The Marketplace
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
On-Site Sales: What Lessor's Counsel Should Know
When equipment lessors evaluate the risks of underwriting lease transactions for manufacturing equipment, one of the primary considerations in the credit decision is the resale value of the equipment in the event of default. In preparing for this risk, a key component of an underwriter's evaluation must be how to access and market the equipment in the event of a default. Therefore, it is critical to look at every transaction from the perspective of how much money a piece of equipment will bring in a sale, if there is an established market for the particular equipment, and also, how and where the equipment can best be marketed and sold if a liquidation is necessary. An often-overlooked and significant factor in this analysis is whether the lessor will have unfettered access to remove the equipment to sell, refurbish, and/or prepare for liquidation at the location where it has been used.
Best Practices and the Leasing Industry
Best practices" seem to be on the tips of everyone's tongues these days. At the recent ELA Executive Roundtable Conference, the concept of applying best practices to leasing companies was a key focus of discussion. This trend is a clear endorsement of continually benchmarking performance and learning from others what works and what doesn't.
Is It a True Lease or a Loan?
<i>Part One of a Two-Part Series.</i>Anyone who has been in the leasing business for much time at all understands that a transaction that the parties describe as a "lease" can be either a "true lease" where the lessor owns the leased equipment or a "loan" which results in the lessee being the owner and the lessor having merely a security interest. The latter is commonly referred to as "disguised security interests" or "leases intended as security" or "financing leases." Many people also have a general understanding of the distinction between the two, and most of those reading this article have heard one person or another proclaim the bright-line rule that a lease with a dollar purchase option is a loan and a lease with a fair market value purchase option is a true lease.
Circuit Court Ruling on Nonmonetary Defaults Sets Up Conflict Over Bankruptcy Code
A recent circuit court decision regarding the interpretation of section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has set up a conflict between two circuits. On March 15, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion regarding whether bankruptcy debtors are required to cure nonmonetary defaults prior to assuming unexpired leases under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. &sect;365. <i>In re Bankvest Capital Corp. (Eagle Insurance Co. v. Bankvest Capital Corp.)</i>, 360 F.3d 291 (1st Cir. 2004). The First Circuit found &mdash; expressly contrary to a holding of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals &mdash; that debtors are not required to cure such defaults, resulting in a split in the circuits over a very widely used section of the code.
Leveraged Lease Gone Bad? Avoid the Courtroom with Mediation
Throughout the 40-year history of U.S. leveraged leasing, deals have occasionally gone bad. Lessees default, markets change, equipment loses value ' sometimes even the best planned and executed deal may turn out to be the biggest problem in a lessor's portfolio.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • The 'Sophisticated Insured' Defense
    A majority of courts consider the <i>contra proferentem</i> doctrine to be a pillar of insurance law. The doctrine requires ambiguous terms in an insurance policy to be construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage for the insured. A prominent rationale behind the doctrine is that insurance policies are usually standard-form contracts drafted entirely by insurers.
    Read More ›
  • Abandoned and Unused Cables: A Hidden Liability Under the 2002 National Electric Code
    In an effort to minimize the release of toxic gasses from cables in the event of fire, the 2002 version of the National Electric Code ("NEC"), promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, sets forth new guidelines requiring that abandoned cables must be removed from buildings unless they are located in metal raceways or tagged "For Future Use." While the NEC is not, in itself, binding law, most jurisdictions in the United States adopt the NEC by reference in their state or local building and fire codes. Thus, noncompliance with the recent NEC guidelines will likely mean that a building is in violation of a building or fire code. If so, the building owner may also be in breach of agreements with tenants and lenders and may be jeopardizing its fire insurance coverage. Even in jurisdictions where the 2002 NEC has not been adopted, it may be argued that the guidelines represent the standard of reasonable care and could result in tort liability for the landlord if toxic gasses from abandoned cables are emitted in a fire. With these potential liabilities in mind, this article discusses: 1) how to address the abandoned wires and cables currently located within the risers, ceilings and other areas of properties, and 2) additional considerations in the placement and removal of telecommunications cables going forward.
    Read More ›