Blog Post

CASH OR CREDIT…LANDLORDS BEWARE!

Jordan Uditsky • May 18, 2013

INTRODUCTION Though it may seem that the economy is on the mend, a quick discussion with the leaders of many area businesses exposes an underlying unease as to whether the economy as a whole can sustain its recovery given the inability of bureaucrats in Washington to craft long-term solutions to our country’s financial crisis. Many […] The post CASH OR CREDIT…LANDLORDS BEWARE! appeared first on GGHH Law.



INTRODUCTION

Though it may seem that the economy is on the mend, a quick discussion with the leaders of many area businesses exposes an underlying unease as to whether the economy as a whole can sustain its recovery given the inability of bureaucrats in Washington to craft long-term solutions to our country’s financial crisis. Many of these businesses continue to struggle to remain profitable and avoid the financial pitfalls of the recent recession. These same struggles affect more than the businesses themselves, and when a business’ financial struggles involve a bankruptcy they can have devastating results for creditors, particularly commercial landlords. While commercial landlords either holding a cash security deposit or a letter of credit may think themselves isolated from a tenant’s bankruptcy, some have found that neither is actually immune from risk.


CASH PITFALLS

Cash security deposits have long been the traditional form of security for a commercial lease, typically in the amount of one to two month’s rent. However, the recent financial crisis exposed a weakness in what was otherwise thought to be ironclad security against a tenant’s default. When a tenant declares bankruptcy the landlord may find themselves enmeshed in a fight with the bankruptcy trustee to retain that security deposit. A cash security deposit is generally regarded as an asset of the bankruptcy estate under Section 541(a). Courts have held, however, that landlords may offset a portion of the security deposit against their allowable claims but that any surplus must be returned to the debtor ( Oldden v. Tonto Realty Corp. , 143 F.2d 916 (2 nd Cir. 1944)). They have gone further to provide that a landlord’s security deposit constitutes a perfected security interest or lien in the landlord’s favor ( In re Johnson , 215 B.R. 381, 384 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1997)). It would seem the landlord’s ability to retain the security deposit is an equitable remedy until one examines and understands what an “allowable claim” is under the Bankruptcy Code.


A debtor-tenant has the ability to reject certain leases pursuant to Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Such a lease rejection is tantamount to a default under the terms of most leases giving the landlord a general unsecured claim against the bankruptcy estate for the resulting damages. Unfortunately, the landlord’s claim is limited by Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code to the amount of accrued but unpaid rent plus the amount of rent reserved under the lease for the greater of one year or 15% of the remaining term of the lease. To the extent the cash security deposit exceeds the amount of the Landlord’s claim, it must be returned to the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.


WHY IS A LETTER OF CREDIT BETTER THAN CASH

In order to provide some insulation from the risk of a security deposit being tied up in a tenant’s bankruptcy, many landlords prefer the issuance of a standby letter of credit. A standby letter of credit issued by the tenant’s bank or, preferably, a bank satisfactory to the landlord is an independent obligation of the issuing bank to the landlord. The letter of credit stands apart from the tenant’s obligation to reimburse the issuing bank and is therefore not generally a part of the bankruptcy estate. Less risk? It would seem that way until one considers the long list of bank failures over the past several years and the FDIC’s unwillingness to honor letters of credit issued to commercial landlords by failed banking institutions. With the economic recovery still uncertain, commercial landlords should take proactive measures in their leases requiring tenants to replace letters of credit issued by insolvent banks and permitting the landlord to make a periodic review of the letter of credit issuer. Landlords should also reserve the absolute right to approve the bank issuing the letter of credit or provide a list of acceptable financial institutions from whom they will accept a letter of credit. It should also be noted that the interaction between a landlord’s proposed draw on a letter of credit and the 502(b)(6) cap is unsettled. Landlord’s should anticipate that any drawdown on a letter of credit may have an impact on the amount of the landlord’s claim in a tenant’s bankruptcy.


Jordan Uditsky is a partner in the corporate practice of Garelli, Grogan, Hesse & Hauert. He brings a diverse legal and business background to the firm, with a particular emphasis on the representation of startups and emerging companies, commercial real estate transactions, tax and estate planning. He advises businesses in a broad range of general corporate and corporate transactional matters, including business organizations and choice of entity issues, financing and private equity, mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures as well as business restructurings. Mr. Uditsky also employs his experience as a business owner to advise companies on regulatory issues and compliance matters, employment policies and legal issues related to their general operations and business strategy.


Garelli Grogan Hesse & Hauert offers sophisticated yet cost effective, practical solutions to our clients’ legal challenges. We strive to understand not only the legal issue but our clients’ business goals as well and craft tailored solutions to help them succeed. Our attorneys represent businesses and individuals throughout the Midwest in matters that include commercial litigation, securities, business counseling and transactions, commercial real estate, estate planning and family law. For more information contact Jordan Uditsky at (630)833-5533 x12 or juditsky@gghhlaw.com.


The post CASH OR CREDIT…LANDLORDS BEWARE! appeared first on GGHH Law.

17 May, 2024
Because they possess a treasure trove of personal, financial, and health information about hundreds or thousands of patients, physicians, dentists, and other healthcare practices and facilities are the frequent targets of hackers and cyberattacks. That threat has not diminished, and in a May 6, 2024 notice to the American Dental Association (ADA) and the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) warned of a credible, active cybersecurity threat to the practices of oral and maxillofacial surgeons. While this current threat is focused on oral and maxillofacial surgeons, the FBI has expressed concern that the practices of general dentists and other specialists could also eventually be targeted. According to the ADA, the FBI suspects that the group behind the cyberattacks may be shifting tactics to oral and maxillofacial surgery practices after targeting plastic surgeons last year. Accordingly, all dental practices and practitioners need to be on high alert against such attacks, which focus on “social engineering scams” — such as phishing (email), SMSishing (through text or instant messaging apps), and vishing (using phone calls and voicemail) — to gain access to sensitive personal data such as electronic protected health information. In particular, the FBI warns of “spear phishing,” which refers to a phishing email that appears to be from a trusted contact. Through these scams, the FBI says, “threat actors try to convince people to reveal sensitive information, or to click on a link, open an attachment or visit a website that causes malware to be deployed. This malware can lead to ransomware, which blocks system and/or file access until money is paid.” The FBI provided an example of such a scam: A threat actor poses as a new patient or says they want to become a patient at the practice to obtain new patient forms online. Once the forms are received, the threat actor will then contact the practice to report they are having trouble submitting them online and ask if they can scan the forms and email them instead. The threat actor then emails the “forms” as an attachment. When the attachment is opened, malware is deployed through a phishing scheme. The FBI requests dental practices that experience any fraudulent or suspicious activities to report them to the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center at ic3.gov. Precautions Dental Practices Can Take To Protect Against Phishing and Other Cyberattacks The Cybersecurity &; Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) recommends four vital ways to protect your practice from cyberthreats: Teach your team to recognize and avoid phishing Require strong passwords Require multi-factor authentication Update all business software Additionally, practices should have policies and protocols in place to immediately respond to and remediate any data breaches that result from a phishing scam or other cyberattack. The following resources are also available to support dental professionals: A CISA.gov toolkit aids healthcare practices in building cybersecurity foundations and implementing more advanced, complex tools to stay secure and ahead of current threats. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Knowledge on Demand resource offers five free cybersecurity trainings that align with the top five threats named in HHS’ Health Industry Cybersecurity Practices. HHS also provides information on how the HIPAA security rule can help defend against cyberattacks. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology’s Security Risk Assessment Tool, a resource designed to help medium and small providers conduct a security risk assessment as required by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Information Security and Health Sector Cybersecurity Coordination Center’s “Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity and the Health Sector” guide shares how healthcare entities help protect against AI-enhanced cyberthreats. Additional resources can be found at ADA.org/riskmanagement Call Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky Today At Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. If you have questions or concerns about your practice’s compliance with HIPAA, please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals. 
17 May, 2024
Like owners of other businesses, dental practice owners often hire staff members as independent contractors rather than as employees. They do so to keep expenses down, minimize tax obligations, and reduce time spent worrying about personnel and payroll matters such as overtime pay, sick leave, insurance, and other employment law issues. Ultimately, however, whether an associate dentist, hygienist, or other team member is appropriately classified as an employee or contractor isn’t up to the practice owner. It is up to the law and the rules promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). And under a DOL Final Rule that became effective on March 11, 2024, more dental workers are now likely to be considered employees instead of contractors, no matter what label a practice owner uses for them. The Final Rule, which was initially published in January 2024, revises the DOL’s analysis for determining employee or independent contractor classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically, the new Final Rule rescinds a rule promulgated under the previous administration which identified five “economic reality factors” to be used in determining whether a worker was an employee or independent contractor. Under the prior rule, two of the five factors— “the nature and degree of control over the work and the workers opportunity for profit or loss” were designated as “core factors” that were to carry more weight in the analysis. Six-Factor “Economic Reality Test” To Determine Proper Classification That rule was generally seen as more employer-friendly in that it made it easier to classify a worker as a contractor. Under the new Final Rule, the “core factors” mentioned above are no longer part of the analysis. Instead, the new rule uses a “totality-of-the-circumstances” approach and an “economic reality test” that looks at the economic reality of the worker’s activities and the nature of the working relationship with the employer. The new rule sets forth six factors to be used in determining whether the “economic realities of the working relationship” reveal a worker to be economically dependent on the employer – in which case they would be likely considered an employee – or whether the worker is in business for themselves such that they are an independent contractor. These factors, described in the economic reality test of the final rule, are: opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill; investments by the worker and the potential employer; degree of permanence of the work relationship; nature and degree of control; extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the potential employer’s business; and skill and initiative. No one factor or subset of factors determines if a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Rather, all the circumstances of the relationship should be examined. The weight given to each factor may depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular relationship. Also, additional factors may be relevant if they in some way indicate if the worker is in business for themself as opposed to being economically dependent on the employer for work. In the case of associate dentists, these factors in the abstract would likely make most such practitioners employees rather than contractors. As noted, however, the ultimate determination as to the proper classification comes down to the specific circumstances of each employment relationship. In conjunction with the publication of the Final Rule, the DOL has issued guidance for employers through Frequently Asked Questions and a Small Entity Compliance Guide. These resources provide important insights for dental practice owners as they evaluate the status of their current employment relationships and make any needed adjustments to comport with the new rule’s classification standards. However, given the fact-specific nature of the classification analysis established by the rule, practice owners are strongly advised to consult with experienced counsel to ensure compliance. The financial cost of non-compliance to the practice can be substantial, but it can also cost owners personally, as they can be held liable individually for any intentional misclassification. To avoid such consequences, dental practice owners should discuss any questions or concerns with an experienced employment and dental practice attorney. At Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
By Jordan Uditsky 04 Jan, 2022
An amendment to the Mechanics Lien Act (the "Act') permits the bonding over of mechanic's liens in the State of Illinois. The bill was signed into law ( 770 ILCS 60/38.1 ) on July 28, 2015, and went into effect on January 1, 2016. This statute is significant because it allows parties to "clear title" to real property that would otherwise be subject to a mechanic's lien. An eligible applicant will be permitted to substitute a bond for the real property subject to the underlying mechanic's lien so that the lien attaches to the bond instead of the real property. Who is Eligible? To take advantage of 770 ILCS 60/38.1 , the party desiring to bond over the lien must be an eligible applicant. The statute defines applicant relatively broadly to include the following parties: An owner; Other lien claimant; A party that has an interest in the property subject to the lien claim; An association representing owners organized under any statute or to which the Common Interest Community Association Act applies; or Any person who may be liable for the payment of the lien claim, including an owner, former owner, association representing owners organized under any statute or to which the Common Interest Community Association Act applies, or the contractor or subcontractor. Process for Filing a Petition To effectively substitute the bond for the real property, the applicant must file a petition with the clerk of the circuit court in the county where the property subject to the underlying lien claim is located. The petition must include the following: The name and address of the applicant and the applicant's attorney, if any; The name and address of the lien claimant; If there is a pending action to enforce the claim, the name of the attorney of record, or if there is no pending claim, but the claim has been recorded, the name of the preparer of the lien claim; The name and address of the owner of record of any real estate subject to the claim or the name and address of the homeowners association or the condominium association; A legal description of the property; A copy of the lien claim; A copy of the proposed eligible surety bond; A certified copy of the surety's certificate of authority from the Department of Insurance or the state agency charged with the duty to issue the certificate; and An undertaking by the applicant to replace the bond with another eligible surety bond in the event that the proposed eligible surety bond ceases to be an eligible bond. After filing a proper petition, the applicant must provide notice and a copy of the petition, either by personal service or certified mail, to every party whose name and address is stated in the petition and the lien party's attorney of record. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise business owners in the Chicago area.
Show More
Share by: