Both landlords and tenants are well served to begin discussing exclusives early in the lease negotiations.
Customer information has become an increasingly valuable business asset. And, the volume and detail of other available information about consumers has increased along with it, well beyond mere customer names and addresses to preferences, purchasing history, and online activity. This means that when a business is sold, customer information is often sold along with it. But careful diligence is required in handling this intangible asset, and the recent settlement in the RadioShack bankruptcy case is instructive.
In re RML Dev., Inc., 528 B.R. 150 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2014) –
A mortgagee sought to modify a sale order to (1) modify the bid procedures and (2) confirm that it had a right to credit bid.
In re Walker, 526 B.R. 187 (E.D. La. 2015) –
The bankruptcy court (1) denied a mortgage lender’s request to file a late amendment to a proof of claim that had been filed on its behalf by the debtor and (2) confirmed the debtor’s proposed plan over the mortgagee’s objection that the plan payments were not sufficient to cure the actual arrearage. The lender appealed to the district court.
A chapter 7 trustee sought return of a “good faith” deposit made prior to bankruptcy in connection with a proposed purchase of real estate. The bankruptcy court found against the trustee, as did the district court. So the trustee appealed to the 6th Circuit.
Senior lienholders sued lenders holding junior liens on common collateral, arguing that the junior lienholders violated an intercreditor agreement. The bankruptcy court addressed the issues in the context of motions to dismiss the senior lienholder complaints.
A chapter 13 debtor sought a court determination that a mortgage loan was unsecured because there was a small typo in her name when the mortgage was indexed. The mortgagee brought a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Applicable state law included the following provisions:
In re Ramz Real Estate Co., LLC, 510 B.R. 712 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) –
An undersecured mortgagee objected to a debtor’s proposed plan of reorganization on several grounds, including that (1) the plan was not approved by a proper impaired class and (2) retention of equity by the debtor’s members violated the absolute priority rule.