provides a strategic SWOT analysis of the company's businesses and operations. Industry specific SWOT analysis (Relevance/Importance)What happens in the underlying industry? (30%, 29%)-The industry shows a strong diversification. (49%, 10%)-New trade agreements between countries are possible. s products and services, key competitors, as well as detailed financial information. Compliance Compliance is necessary to make sure that any business or action conducted by a company is within legal parameters.

The profile shows a comprehensive view of the company's key strengths and weaknesses and the potential opportunities and threats. Factors and trends affecting the overall industry and their implications for this business:-The industry is more robust than the economy in general. Data on this page may have come in part, or entirely, from one or more data providers. We are not responsible for any errors or omissions on this page. The compliance unit develops, initiates, maintains, and revises policies and procedures for the general operation of the compliance program and its related activities to prevent illegal, unethical, or improper conduct.

Categories: industry report, financial report, company report, industry research Tag: key competitors, key employees, major products and services, detailed financial ratios Description: Higher competition might be possible. Financial and strategic SWOT analysis A financial and strategic SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) Analysis provides a comprehensive insight into the company’s history, corporate strategy, financial data, business structure, business divisions and key operations.

We see a growing market and believe that this trend will continue. provides a strategic SWOT analysis of the company's businesses and operations. Each report contains a detailed SWOT analysis with additional information on the key competitors, market structure, major products, brands and services, as well as detailed financial data for the last 5 years.

This analytical framework is largely based on Oldden v. Oldden, a case often cited by bankruptcy courts, involved a landlord who held a cash security deposit from a debtor, and addressed the question of “whether a landlord is required to deduct the amount of security held under a lease from the total damages provided by the lease or from the total claim allowable [under the Bankruptcy Code].” Oldden, 143 F.2d at 918 . AMB contends that Judge Klein’s majority opinion in In re Condor Systems, Inc., 296 B. Regardless of whether we apply Oldden, or adopt Judge Klein’s reasoning, the result is the same; the judgment below stands.

The Oldden court concluded that the security deposit should be deducted from the allowable claim rather than the total damages. Congress endorsed this holding, as the House Judiciary Report to amended Section 502(b)(6) notes: This paragraph will not overrule Oldden, or the proposition for which it has been read to stand: to the extent that a landlord has a security deposit in excess of the amount allowed under this paragraph, the excess comes into the estate…. Under either rationale, the proceeds of the letter of credit were properly subtracted from AMB’s allowed claim. [*] The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

The only issue in this appeal is whether to apply the $1 million Security Deposit/Letter of Credit against the $5 million “gross damages” number or the $2 million “capped” number. Given this ambiguity, Congress’s explicit endorsement of Oldden prevents us from accepting AMB’s invitation to reject the case outright.

The Creditors’ Committee argues that the plain language of the statute, appellate decisions from other circuits, and legislative history support deducting the

The Creditors’ Committee argues that the plain language of the statute, appellate decisions from other circuits, and legislative history support deducting the $1 million Security Deposit from the “capped” number. According to the Creditors’ Committee’s interpretation (which was employed by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court), Section 502(b)(6) requires a court to: (1) determine the landlord’s gross damages (net of any recovery through re-letting the property); (2) compare the gross damages to the statutory cap of one year’s rent; (3) subtract any 964 *964 security deposit or letter of credit from the lesser of gross damages or one year’s rent; and (4) allow a claim for this amount. AMB alternatively argues that even if we accept Oldden in the context of cash security deposits, we should not extend Oldden’s rule to encompass letters of credit.As under Oldden, [a landlord] will not be permitted to offset his actual damages against his security deposit and then claim for the balance under this paragraph. [1] Section 502’s alternative cap of 15% is not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the parties’ submissions and argument in this appeal, throughout this opinion the figure is rounded to $5 million.Rather, his security deposit will be applied in satisfaction of the claim that is allowed under this paragraph. Likewise, one year’s rent of $2,000,755.20, and the proceeds of the Letter of Credit of $999,970.00, are rounded to $2 million and $1 million respectively. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Background This case was decided on stipulated facts in the bankruptcy court. Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, Mc KEOWN, Circuit Judge, and DUFFY, [*] District Judge. This case arises from the bankruptcy of Adaptive Broadband Corporation (“Debtor”). In that judgment, the bankruptcy court sustained the Creditors’ Committee’s objection to AMB’s claim against Debtor’s estate for breach-of-lease damages. Debtor established a fully-collateralized $1,000,000 letter of credit, in favor of AMB, through Union Bank (“Letter of Credit” or “Letter”).

||

The Creditors’ Committee argues that the plain language of the statute, appellate decisions from other circuits, and legislative history support deducting the $1 million Security Deposit from the “capped” number. According to the Creditors’ Committee’s interpretation (which was employed by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court), Section 502(b)(6) requires a court to: (1) determine the landlord’s gross damages (net of any recovery through re-letting the property); (2) compare the gross damages to the statutory cap of one year’s rent; (3) subtract any 964 *964 security deposit or letter of credit from the lesser of gross damages or one year’s rent; and (4) allow a claim for this amount. AMB alternatively argues that even if we accept Oldden in the context of cash security deposits, we should not extend Oldden’s rule to encompass letters of credit.

As under Oldden, [a landlord] will not be permitted to offset his actual damages against his security deposit and then claim for the balance under this paragraph. [1] Section 502’s alternative cap of 15% is not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the parties’ submissions and argument in this appeal, throughout this opinion the figure is rounded to $5 million.

Rather, his security deposit will be applied in satisfaction of the claim that is allowed under this paragraph. Likewise, one year’s rent of $2,000,755.20, and the proceeds of the Letter of Credit of $999,970.00, are rounded to $2 million and $1 million respectively.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Background This case was decided on stipulated facts in the bankruptcy court.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, Mc KEOWN, Circuit Judge, and DUFFY, [*] District Judge. This case arises from the bankruptcy of Adaptive Broadband Corporation (“Debtor”). In that judgment, the bankruptcy court sustained the Creditors’ Committee’s objection to AMB’s claim against Debtor’s estate for breach-of-lease damages.

Debtor established a fully-collateralized $1,000,000 letter of credit, in favor of AMB, through Union Bank (“Letter of Credit” or “Letter”).

||

The Creditors’ Committee argues that the plain language of the statute, appellate decisions from other circuits, and legislative history support deducting the $1 million Security Deposit from the “capped” number. According to the Creditors’ Committee’s interpretation (which was employed by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court), Section 502(b)(6) requires a court to: (1) determine the landlord’s gross damages (net of any recovery through re-letting the property); (2) compare the gross damages to the statutory cap of one year’s rent; (3) subtract any 964 *964 security deposit or letter of credit from the lesser of gross damages or one year’s rent; and (4) allow a claim for this amount. AMB alternatively argues that even if we accept Oldden in the context of cash security deposits, we should not extend Oldden’s rule to encompass letters of credit.

As under Oldden, [a landlord] will not be permitted to offset his actual damages against his security deposit and then claim for the balance under this paragraph. [1] Section 502’s alternative cap of 15% is not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the parties’ submissions and argument in this appeal, throughout this opinion the figure is rounded to $5 million.

Rather, his security deposit will be applied in satisfaction of the claim that is allowed under this paragraph. Likewise, one year’s rent of $2,000,755.20, and the proceeds of the Letter of Credit of $999,970.00, are rounded to $2 million and $1 million respectively.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Background This case was decided on stipulated facts in the bankruptcy court.

million Security Deposit from the “capped” number. According to the Creditors’ Committee’s interpretation (which was employed by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court), Section 502(b)(6) requires a court to: (1) determine the landlord’s gross damages (net of any recovery through re-letting the property); (2) compare the gross damages to the statutory cap of one year’s rent; (3) subtract any 964 *964 security deposit or letter of credit from the lesser of gross damages or one year’s rent; and (4) allow a claim for this amount. AMB alternatively argues that even if we accept Oldden in the context of cash security deposits, we should not extend Oldden’s rule to encompass letters of credit.

As under Oldden, [a landlord] will not be permitted to offset his actual damages against his security deposit and then claim for the balance under this paragraph. [1] Section 502’s alternative cap of 15% is not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the parties’ submissions and argument in this appeal, throughout this opinion the figure is rounded to million.

Rather, his security deposit will be applied in satisfaction of the claim that is allowed under this paragraph. Likewise, one year’s rent of ,000,755.20, and the proceeds of the Letter of Credit of 9,970.00, are rounded to million and

The Creditors’ Committee argues that the plain language of the statute, appellate decisions from other circuits, and legislative history support deducting the $1 million Security Deposit from the “capped” number. According to the Creditors’ Committee’s interpretation (which was employed by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court), Section 502(b)(6) requires a court to: (1) determine the landlord’s gross damages (net of any recovery through re-letting the property); (2) compare the gross damages to the statutory cap of one year’s rent; (3) subtract any 964 *964 security deposit or letter of credit from the lesser of gross damages or one year’s rent; and (4) allow a claim for this amount. AMB alternatively argues that even if we accept Oldden in the context of cash security deposits, we should not extend Oldden’s rule to encompass letters of credit.As under Oldden, [a landlord] will not be permitted to offset his actual damages against his security deposit and then claim for the balance under this paragraph. [1] Section 502’s alternative cap of 15% is not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the parties’ submissions and argument in this appeal, throughout this opinion the figure is rounded to $5 million.Rather, his security deposit will be applied in satisfaction of the claim that is allowed under this paragraph. Likewise, one year’s rent of $2,000,755.20, and the proceeds of the Letter of Credit of $999,970.00, are rounded to $2 million and $1 million respectively. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Background This case was decided on stipulated facts in the bankruptcy court. Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, Mc KEOWN, Circuit Judge, and DUFFY, [*] District Judge. This case arises from the bankruptcy of Adaptive Broadband Corporation (“Debtor”). In that judgment, the bankruptcy court sustained the Creditors’ Committee’s objection to AMB’s claim against Debtor’s estate for breach-of-lease damages. Debtor established a fully-collateralized $1,000,000 letter of credit, in favor of AMB, through Union Bank (“Letter of Credit” or “Letter”).

||

The Creditors’ Committee argues that the plain language of the statute, appellate decisions from other circuits, and legislative history support deducting the $1 million Security Deposit from the “capped” number. According to the Creditors’ Committee’s interpretation (which was employed by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court), Section 502(b)(6) requires a court to: (1) determine the landlord’s gross damages (net of any recovery through re-letting the property); (2) compare the gross damages to the statutory cap of one year’s rent; (3) subtract any 964 *964 security deposit or letter of credit from the lesser of gross damages or one year’s rent; and (4) allow a claim for this amount. AMB alternatively argues that even if we accept Oldden in the context of cash security deposits, we should not extend Oldden’s rule to encompass letters of credit.

As under Oldden, [a landlord] will not be permitted to offset his actual damages against his security deposit and then claim for the balance under this paragraph. [1] Section 502’s alternative cap of 15% is not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the parties’ submissions and argument in this appeal, throughout this opinion the figure is rounded to $5 million.

Rather, his security deposit will be applied in satisfaction of the claim that is allowed under this paragraph. Likewise, one year’s rent of $2,000,755.20, and the proceeds of the Letter of Credit of $999,970.00, are rounded to $2 million and $1 million respectively.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Background This case was decided on stipulated facts in the bankruptcy court.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, Mc KEOWN, Circuit Judge, and DUFFY, [*] District Judge. This case arises from the bankruptcy of Adaptive Broadband Corporation (“Debtor”). In that judgment, the bankruptcy court sustained the Creditors’ Committee’s objection to AMB’s claim against Debtor’s estate for breach-of-lease damages.

Debtor established a fully-collateralized $1,000,000 letter of credit, in favor of AMB, through Union Bank (“Letter of Credit” or “Letter”).

||

The Creditors’ Committee argues that the plain language of the statute, appellate decisions from other circuits, and legislative history support deducting the $1 million Security Deposit from the “capped” number. According to the Creditors’ Committee’s interpretation (which was employed by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court), Section 502(b)(6) requires a court to: (1) determine the landlord’s gross damages (net of any recovery through re-letting the property); (2) compare the gross damages to the statutory cap of one year’s rent; (3) subtract any 964 *964 security deposit or letter of credit from the lesser of gross damages or one year’s rent; and (4) allow a claim for this amount. AMB alternatively argues that even if we accept Oldden in the context of cash security deposits, we should not extend Oldden’s rule to encompass letters of credit.

As under Oldden, [a landlord] will not be permitted to offset his actual damages against his security deposit and then claim for the balance under this paragraph. [1] Section 502’s alternative cap of 15% is not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the parties’ submissions and argument in this appeal, throughout this opinion the figure is rounded to $5 million.

Rather, his security deposit will be applied in satisfaction of the claim that is allowed under this paragraph. Likewise, one year’s rent of $2,000,755.20, and the proceeds of the Letter of Credit of $999,970.00, are rounded to $2 million and $1 million respectively.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Background This case was decided on stipulated facts in the bankruptcy court.

million respectively.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Background This case was decided on stipulated facts in the bankruptcy court.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, Mc KEOWN, Circuit Judge, and DUFFY, [*] District Judge. This case arises from the bankruptcy of Adaptive Broadband Corporation (“Debtor”). In that judgment, the bankruptcy court sustained the Creditors’ Committee’s objection to AMB’s claim against Debtor’s estate for breach-of-lease damages.

Debtor established a fully-collateralized

The Creditors’ Committee argues that the plain language of the statute, appellate decisions from other circuits, and legislative history support deducting the $1 million Security Deposit from the “capped” number. According to the Creditors’ Committee’s interpretation (which was employed by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court), Section 502(b)(6) requires a court to: (1) determine the landlord’s gross damages (net of any recovery through re-letting the property); (2) compare the gross damages to the statutory cap of one year’s rent; (3) subtract any 964 *964 security deposit or letter of credit from the lesser of gross damages or one year’s rent; and (4) allow a claim for this amount. AMB alternatively argues that even if we accept Oldden in the context of cash security deposits, we should not extend Oldden’s rule to encompass letters of credit.As under Oldden, [a landlord] will not be permitted to offset his actual damages against his security deposit and then claim for the balance under this paragraph. [1] Section 502’s alternative cap of 15% is not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the parties’ submissions and argument in this appeal, throughout this opinion the figure is rounded to $5 million.Rather, his security deposit will be applied in satisfaction of the claim that is allowed under this paragraph. Likewise, one year’s rent of $2,000,755.20, and the proceeds of the Letter of Credit of $999,970.00, are rounded to $2 million and $1 million respectively. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Background This case was decided on stipulated facts in the bankruptcy court. Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, Mc KEOWN, Circuit Judge, and DUFFY, [*] District Judge. This case arises from the bankruptcy of Adaptive Broadband Corporation (“Debtor”). In that judgment, the bankruptcy court sustained the Creditors’ Committee’s objection to AMB’s claim against Debtor’s estate for breach-of-lease damages. Debtor established a fully-collateralized $1,000,000 letter of credit, in favor of AMB, through Union Bank (“Letter of Credit” or “Letter”).

||

The Creditors’ Committee argues that the plain language of the statute, appellate decisions from other circuits, and legislative history support deducting the $1 million Security Deposit from the “capped” number. According to the Creditors’ Committee’s interpretation (which was employed by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court), Section 502(b)(6) requires a court to: (1) determine the landlord’s gross damages (net of any recovery through re-letting the property); (2) compare the gross damages to the statutory cap of one year’s rent; (3) subtract any 964 *964 security deposit or letter of credit from the lesser of gross damages or one year’s rent; and (4) allow a claim for this amount. AMB alternatively argues that even if we accept Oldden in the context of cash security deposits, we should not extend Oldden’s rule to encompass letters of credit.

As under Oldden, [a landlord] will not be permitted to offset his actual damages against his security deposit and then claim for the balance under this paragraph. [1] Section 502’s alternative cap of 15% is not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the parties’ submissions and argument in this appeal, throughout this opinion the figure is rounded to $5 million.

Rather, his security deposit will be applied in satisfaction of the claim that is allowed under this paragraph. Likewise, one year’s rent of $2,000,755.20, and the proceeds of the Letter of Credit of $999,970.00, are rounded to $2 million and $1 million respectively.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Background This case was decided on stipulated facts in the bankruptcy court.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, Mc KEOWN, Circuit Judge, and DUFFY, [*] District Judge. This case arises from the bankruptcy of Adaptive Broadband Corporation (“Debtor”). In that judgment, the bankruptcy court sustained the Creditors’ Committee’s objection to AMB’s claim against Debtor’s estate for breach-of-lease damages.

Debtor established a fully-collateralized $1,000,000 letter of credit, in favor of AMB, through Union Bank (“Letter of Credit” or “Letter”).

||

The Creditors’ Committee argues that the plain language of the statute, appellate decisions from other circuits, and legislative history support deducting the $1 million Security Deposit from the “capped” number. According to the Creditors’ Committee’s interpretation (which was employed by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court), Section 502(b)(6) requires a court to: (1) determine the landlord’s gross damages (net of any recovery through re-letting the property); (2) compare the gross damages to the statutory cap of one year’s rent; (3) subtract any 964 *964 security deposit or letter of credit from the lesser of gross damages or one year’s rent; and (4) allow a claim for this amount. AMB alternatively argues that even if we accept Oldden in the context of cash security deposits, we should not extend Oldden’s rule to encompass letters of credit.

As under Oldden, [a landlord] will not be permitted to offset his actual damages against his security deposit and then claim for the balance under this paragraph. [1] Section 502’s alternative cap of 15% is not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the parties’ submissions and argument in this appeal, throughout this opinion the figure is rounded to $5 million.

Rather, his security deposit will be applied in satisfaction of the claim that is allowed under this paragraph. Likewise, one year’s rent of $2,000,755.20, and the proceeds of the Letter of Credit of $999,970.00, are rounded to $2 million and $1 million respectively.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Background This case was decided on stipulated facts in the bankruptcy court.

,000,000 letter of credit, in favor of AMB, through Union Bank (“Letter of Credit” or “Letter”).