In re Main Street Business Funding, LLC, No. 23-2430 (3d Cir. Sept. 5, 2024) (Ambro, J.), the Third Circuit confirmed that an all-assets lien that extends to after-acquired property does not extend to a borrower’s commercial tort claims unless described with sufficient particularity under the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). The court also confirmed that commercial tort claims can constitute proceeds of collateral, but that the commercial tort claims here did not constitute proceeds of the loan at issue in the case.
Background
In MaIlinckrodt PLC v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 23-1111, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court decision finding a debtor’s obligation to pay a perpetual royalty was an unsecured claim that was dischargeable in bankruptcy. The decision is a cautionary tale for contract counterparties that negotiate future payment rights.
Background
In In re New Dragon Toy Wholesale, Inc., Chief Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn denied a debtor/tenant’s motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin a landlord and the New York City marshal from evicting the debtor from a commercial property, holding that the eviction was excepted from the automatic stay since the commercial lease terminated pre-bankruptcy.
Background
In In re Hal Luftig Company, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Denise L. Cote), denied confirmation of a Subchapter V plan of reorganization that contained a nonconsensual release of a non-debtor party.
Background
When a bankruptcy debtor rejects a lease, a landlord is entitled to a rejection damages claim. Under Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code, a landlord’s claim is capped at “the rent reserved by such lease, without acceleration, for the greater of one year, or 15%, not to exceed three years, of the remaining term of such lease.”
Courts have taken two different approaches in interpreting what constitutes the “15%” in the statute: (A) the remaining rent due under the lease; or (B) the remaining time under the lease.
The “Rent Approach”
In In re Flatbush Rho Mezz LLC, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York allowed a secured creditor to be paid the entirety of a $5 million bond based on a loan with 24% default rate interest that continued to accrue interest during the pendency of an appeal.
Background of the Dispute
One of the three debtors, 85 Flatbush RHO Mezz LLC ("Mezz"), acquired a mixed-use property “with a hotel component” in Brooklyn, New York.
The COVID-19 Bankruptcy Relief Extension Act of 2021, enacted on March 27, gives small businesses with noncontingent liquidated debts (excluding obligations to insiders and affiliates) that total $7.5 million or less until March 27, 2022, to take advantage of a Subchapter V reorganization. The qualifying debt limit was first increased from $2,725,625 to $7.5 million beginning on March 27, 2020, for one year under an amendment of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA), enacted in December 2020, expands on the advantageous reorganization terms already available for distressed companies under Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Now, reorganizing companies have more time to decide whether to keep or reject real property leases and can stretch out lease obligations under a reorganization plan. These benefits build on the important advantages already available in Subchapter V:
In In re Callaway (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2024), the bankruptcy court refused to dismiss a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case in which the dy to file for bankruptcy, as another bankruptcy court recently denied a motion dismiss a cannabis-related bankruptcy.
When a bankruptcy debtor rejects a lease, a landlord is entitled to a rejection damages claim. Under Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code, a landlord’s claim is capped at “the rent reserved by such lease, without acceleration, for the greater of one year, or 15%, not to exceed three years, of the remaining term of such lease.”
Courts have taken two different approaches in interpreting what constitutes the “15%” in the statute: (A) the remaining rent due under the lease; or (B) the remaining time under the lease.
The “Rent Approach”