No equipment lessor wants to find itself a creditor of a lessee in a reorganization case under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the Bankruptcy Code). However, when such a situation arises, a lessor is not without recourse – even where the facts give rise to situations not specifically addressed by the Bankruptcy Code.

In a decision with sweeping consequences for equipment lessors, the bankruptcy court (SDNY) in Republic Airways held that a liquidated damages provision in a true lease is an unenforceable penalty if it provides for the unconditional transfer of residual value risk or market risk only upon default, without a cognizable connection to any anticipated harm caused by the default itself. Importantly for lessors and lenders alike, the bankruptcy court held that the unconditional guaranties of such obligations in favor of the lessor violated public policy and were unenforceable.

Virtually all bankruptcy courts faced with the question of whether growers or dispensers of cannabis and cannabis products can take advantage of the protections afforded by the federal bankruptcy laws have said, no, they cannot.

R&I Alert Restructuring & Insolvency News January 2019, Issue 1 In This Issue: • Can a junior lien holder obtain discovery from a senior lien holder? 1 • Watch your language.

For many decades, companies in the business of leasing “over-the-road” vehicles such as trucks, tractors, and trailers, have used terminal rental adjustment clause (TRAC) leases to maximize the value they can provide to their customers. Traditionally speaking, TRAC leases combine the tax advantages of leasing with an option to purchase the equipment at the end of the lease term for a residual amount determined at the inception of the lease. Since 1981, it has been well-settled that TRAC leases constitute “true” leases, and not disguised financing transactions, for federal tax purposes.

Trademark licensing is a driving force in business relationships. One common example is where one business owns a trademark, which it licenses out to other companies who manufacture and sell the products bearing the mark. But, what happens if the trademark owner goes bankrupt? Bankruptcy law gives a debtor the right to “reject” contracts to free itself of obligations, but if a trademark owner/licensor “rejects” a trademark license agreement, how does that affect the trademark licensee?

Happy birthday, Aubrey Drake Graham. Most people know Mr. Graham strictly by his middle name. The Canadian rapper Drake has carved out a hugely successful career for himself. He sells lots and lots of records – or whatever it is that they sell in the music business these days. Surprise: Drake’s music isn’t exactly our thing. We still play the Beatles more than anything else, we sing along with Crosby, Stills, & Nash in the car, and we have difficulty naming songs post-dating Nirvana.

R&I Alert

Restructuring & Insolvency News

October 2018, Issue 3

In This Issue:

• What happens to committee claims when a

case is converted from a chapter 11 case to

a chapter 7 case? 1

• Equitable mootness: alive and well in the

third circuit 1

• Buyer beware: anti-assignment clauses

enforceable under delaware law 2

• Bankruptcy court finds substantive consolidation

of non-debtors not an available remedy in

seventh circuit 3

• A creditor is allowed to be “selfish” when

The American economy is increasingly dependent upon the importation of merchandise, both raw materials and finished goods. Many of these imported goods are subject to duties imposed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), known as “ordinary duties.” In some situations, supplemental duties such as antidumping and countervailing duties, and now the new duties on aluminum and steel imposed by Executive Order, are also assessed.

The UK Court of Appeal recently considered the liability of issuers to secondary market investors under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (the “1967 Act”) in the case of Taberna Europe CDO II Plc v Selskabet (formerly Roskilde Bank A/S) (In bankruptcy) [2016] EWCA Civ 1262. The Court found that primary and secondary investors could potentially be entitled to rely on online content, such as product presentations, which have been published in a deliberate manner, particularly if the issuer directs investors to the content.