Editor’s Note:Legal Corner contains case summaries and analysis of recent court decisions that impact retail leasing and lease administration. These summaries focus on the leasing issues covered in each case and do not include detailed discussions or analysis of the procedural and peripheral issues in the cases.
Is a Liquidated Damages Clause Enforceable?
The last several years have been treacherous for the retail sector. Changing shopping patterns and shifting demographics have led some commentators to declare that the (retail) apocalypse is upon us.
In this tumultuous retail climate, a string of recent conflicting court decisions remind retailers that the potential impact of a licensor bankruptcy on a trademark licensee’s rights may vary dramatically depending on the location of the licensor’s bankruptcy proceedings.
Although the legal community eagerly awaits the California Supreme Court’s decision on advance waivers in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton v. J-M Mfg. (Cal. No. S232946), a recent decision in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of In re: Relativity Media, LLC, has addressed similar issues and provides some guidance.
Toys “R” Us filed for bankruptcy in September 2017, with hopes that a strong holiday season would facilitate a successful reorganization.
Several recent decisions serve as a good reminder that it is not only the Probate and Family Court that addresses important T&E issues in Massachusetts.
If you believe the hype, it is only a matter of time before brick and mortar retail succumbs to its online competitors.
On March 2nd, after much media speculation, Sports Authority commenced a case under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In its initial bankruptcy filings, the company’s CFO announced that it will close up to 200 of its 464 stores over the course of the bankruptcy case.
Finds Bankruptcy Court to be Proper Forum for Claim Objection Despite Forum Selection Clauses in Investor Agreements
The Southern District of New York recently reiterated the critical difference between creditor claims and equity interests in the bankruptcy context. In a recent opinion arising out of the Arcapita Bank bankruptcy case, the Court was faced with an objection to a proof of claim filed by an investor, Captain Hani Alsohaibi, who characterized his right to recovery against the debtors as being based on a “corporate investment.”
On June 4, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals will hear arguments arising from the bankruptcies of two law firms—Thelen and Coudert Brothers—as to whether the former partners of the bankrupt law firms must turn over profits earned on billable-hour client matters they brought to their new firms.