Client Alerts & Insights
Equipment Holding Companies: Asset Protection Value and Other Benefits for Transportation and Logistics Providers
December 23, 2025
Authored By:
Asset-based transportation is a high-risk high-capital business. Every operator is well aware of the potential nuclear verdict risk for casualty incidents. Every operator is also well aware of every penny invested in growing successful companies. Many of those revenue-generating investments are visible every day, from warehouses and facilities to the real estate on which they sit to, of course, the essential truck tractor power units, trailers, tanks, containers and chassis. Risk tolerances and company maturity change over time, which leaves many executives thinking about how to best protect assets from liabilities.
Every business is unique. Some take the “everything rolls up to the top” perspective on risk. Still others seek strategic organizational development guided by the principle that value is created when we separate distinct risk classes from asset classes. This article explains how asset holding companies can be part of the puzzle for building stronger, better-protected, higher-value companies.
Risk and Asset Separation – Different business activities have different risk profiles. A dry van carrier’s risk is different from tank truck operators, and each is different from brokers. The assets used in those operations hold value that will be collectable by adverse judgments. A strategy that manages these risks and assets is to separate each by creating new leasing companies that are functionally no different than third-party equipment lessors or real estate lessors. Following a thorough risk assessment, operations and assets are separated in unique companies, and then the use of assets by the operation is established through written leases. This helps to protect the entire enterprise from risk while offering avenues to grow enterprise value.
Strategic Benefits – The top benefit from creating asset leasing companies is to help protect assets from liability caused by their operations. Other benefits, especially for ambitious operators, include the potential to lease unused equipment or property to third parties. Doing so could even rely on the Graves Amendment, which protects pure-play equipment lessors from liability for accidents caused by lessees using their equipment. The strategy also creates “portable” companies that could be later sold or financed. Finally, some clients report tax advantages presented by their accountants when implementing these restructurings with lawyers.
Potential Downsides – Nothing is as easy as it seems. Fragmenting business operations and asset pools is most effective when true corporate distinctions are be maintained to help avoid “veil piercing” arguments by plaintiff attorneys. This means that there will be higher bookkeeping burdens, more time-consuming administrative burdens, complexities in naming and branding, and possibly the need to diversify boards or leadership. The approach can also raise questions from customers or others that must be answered truthfully while avoiding confusing the market. All of this is manageable when recognizing that business still needs to get done. No solution is perfect or zero-risk, but if more can be done to maintain distinctions between lessors and lessees, then the protective benefit increases.
Changing business structures can be done at any point in a company’s life cycle, but it is not for everyone. Driving factors can include recent litigation events, relative value and scope of asset investments, diversity of business lines in a company’s service portfolio, desire to create portability for potential sale or financing of the assets, or strategic plans to enter asset leasing as a business. Smaller companies and newer market entrants may see the added complexity of this model as too great. Larger mature companies may already have well-developed and well-worn structures in place.
Jonathan R. Todd is Vice Chair of Benesch’s Transportation & Logistics Practice Group. He can be reached at 216.363.4658 and jtodd@beneschlaw.com.
Latest News
Supreme Court Clarifies Judicial Estoppel Standard in Bankruptcy Nondisclosure Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a rigid rule that often blocked debtors from pursuing claims they failed to disclose in bankruptcy. Courts must now look at the full circumstances before deciding whether an omission was intentional or an honest mistake.
Federal Court Hands Major Win to Tissue Product Manufacturers – FDA’s HCT/P Classification Decision for Umbilical Cord–Derived Product CORDGRAFT Rejected
On March 18, 2026, Chief Judge Brian C. Wimes of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued a significant decision overturning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) classification of Vitti Labs’ umbilical cord–derived product, CORDGRAFT.
Science-Backed But Not FDA-Approved: New Lawsuit Challenges FDA’s Rejection of 114 Health-Related Advertising Claims
A new lawsuit challenges the FDA’s rejection of 114 health-related advertising claims for supplements, arguing that the agency’s narrow interpretation of what counts as an “authoritative statement” unfairly blocks science-backed—but not FDA-approved—claims from appearing on product labels.
When ChatGPT Lies: What the First Wave of AI Defamation Cases Means for Plaintiffs
The common argument made by plaintiffs that differences in alleged misrepresentations are transcended by the center of the gravity of the alleged fraud should not be addressed through the typical approach of just comparing the level of variance of the representations in the case at issue with that in the relevant precedent.