Latest Developments

-

[Your Name Here] — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:16:28 +0000

The firm defeated a bankruptcy trustee's attempt use its powers as a hypothetical judgment lien creditor and defeat an equipment lender's effort to obtain relief from the bankruptcy code's automatic stay. The lender presented its garden-variety motion seeking the court's permission to recover and liquidate its vehicle-collateral. The bankruptcy trustee objected to lender's motion and sought to avoid the lien against the vehicle. The trustee, in essence, argued that a two-year-old change to the identity of the lienholder against the vehicle, caused by the lender's ordinary-course of business effort to transfer its lien from itself to an affiliate, converted the vehicle to property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate. If sustained, the trustee's objection would have had the effect of trumping the lender's security interest, relegating lender to the status on an unsecured creditor. After considering the arguments, the court found the trustee's objection "elevate(d) form over substance" and overruled the trustee's objection. The lender was allowed to recover and liquidate its vehicle.

NEFA Article on Practical considerations for lenders to obtain possession of aircraft from defaulting customers

[Your Name Here] — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:24:59 +0000

Mr. Dressler wrote an article in NEFA magazine regarding practical considerations for lenders to obtain possession of aircraft from defaulting customers. May/June 2010 edition.

-

[Your Name Here] — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:37:44 +0000

In an action to recover an aircraft and a sizable deficiency for a Plaintiff, Dressler | Peters, LLC recently conducted a successful two-day trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Plaintiff complained that the Defendant business breached a financing agreement between the parties for the purchase of an Aircraft. The Plaintiff complained further that, as guarantors of the financing agreement, two additional Defendants were liable as well. In response, the Defendants insisted that it was Plaintiff that breached the agreement, which excused further performance on their part. The Defendants also alleged that the Plaintiff did not dispose of the Aircraft at issue in a commercially reasonable manner. The parties proceeded to trial, and each party had competing experts. The Court found in favor of the Plaintiff. The Court awarded damages to Plaintiff against all Defendants in the amount of $1,291,313.07, the principal balance due and owing under the agreement, as well as prejudgment interest, as provided for in the parties’ agreement. In addition, the Court found the Defendants liable to Plaintiff for its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

-

[Your Name Here] — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:42:00 +0000

In an action to recover a LearJet Model 60 and the resulting deficiency after sale, Dressler | Peters, LLC won a judgment of $3,760,134.64 against two personal guarantors under New York law and settled with another. Dressler | Peters, LLC filed suit in the Unites States District Court for Delaware against several entities for replevin of the LearJet and for a deficiency judgment. Dressler | Peters, LLC successfully obtained a writ of replevin and confiscated the aircraft. After defeating a personal guarantor’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Dressler | Peters, LLC settled with one personal guarantor and obtained a declaratory judgment under New York law ensuring that the settlement did not interfere with the liability of the remaining guarantors. Thereafter, Dressler | Peters, LLC won summary judgment as to liability against the remaining personal guarantors and, after convincing the Court of the commercial reasonableness of the sale of the LearJet, won its judgment.

-

[Your Name Here] — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:10:28 +0000

In an action against a major insurer concerning the appropriate measure of damages to a private aircraft, Dressler | Peters obtained a highly favorable summary judgment in favor of a secured lender who made a claim, as loss-payee, for both the costs of repairs to the aircraft and for the dimunition of the resale value of the aircraft following an accident which occurred prior to the lender's repossession of the aircraft. Dressler | Peters argued for the lender that the loss to the aircraft must be measured not only by the costs to repair the aircraft, but also by the amount the resale value of the aircraft was diminished after the accident since resale values of repaired aircraft are often significantly lower than resale values of accident-free aircraft. The insurer insisted that the policy covered only repair and replacement costs, not a loss to the aircraft's resale value. The U.S. District Court Judge in Idaho found that the insurer's policy was sufficiently ambiguous and reasonably subject to interpretation and support a finding that the policy covered both repair and replacement losses as well as the losses which stemmed from the diminution of the resale value of the aircraft. Consequently, the court ordered further proceedings as to the narrow issue of the amount the resale value of the aircraft was diminished after the accident, entitling the lender to recover its full losses resulting from the accident.

-

[Your Name Here] — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:35:40 +0000

The Firm successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of an equipment lessor for the full amount of the lessor's claim for breach of the lease contract and personal guaranties in the amount of $189,404.97, including late fees, attorneys fees and costs, plus interest. The Court's judgment was entered before the parties' commenced discovery, upon the court's ruling that the commercially unreasonable liquidation sale defenses posed by the equipment lessee must be supported by more than general pleadings and allegations.

-

[Your Name Here] — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:09:56 +0000

Firm obtained summary judgment for equipment financer client, defeating debtors’ arguments that creditor client’s disposition of collateral was not conducted in a commercially reasonable manner and without proper notice. Although commercial reasonableness is ordinarily an issue of fact precluding summary judgment, this victory demonstrates that summary judgment can be obtained where the motion is properly supported with admissible evidence.

-

[Your Name Here] — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:47:23 +0000

Firm obtained TRO and preliminary injunction in Texas against defendants under Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act.

-

[Your Name Here] — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:46:35 +0000

Firm was also involved in a workout of transactions involving the following aircraft: 1980 Israel Aircraft Industries, Model 1124.

-

[Your Name Here] — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:44:33 +0000

Firm was involved in handling sales of the following types of aircraft: 1976 Cessna 421C Golden Eagle; 1997 Learjet 60; 1987 Gates Learjet 55B; 1978 Hawker Siddeley, model HS (125 series 700A); 2005 Enstrom 280 FX Helicopter; 1980 Cessna Citation II 550; 1976 Falcon 10