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.

As noted by my partner David Besikof, the failure of various blockchain businesses is leading to a number of complications in Bankruptcy Court. However, these complications are now edging into allegations of outright fraud. The dimensions of the fraud alleged by Gemini here appear to be both fuzzy and sweeping.

The market for crypto assets has recently experienced significant tumult as evidenced by the bankruptcy filings of several key crypto players, including Three Arrows Capital, Voyager Digital, Celsius Networks, FTX and, most recently, BlockFi. These bankruptcy cases give rise to numerous issues for investors holding crypto assets, which can be mitigated with proper diligence and planning. In addition, there are several estate planning and trust-specific considerations that should be addressed when holding crypto assets (or determining whether to invest in crypto assets).

The market for crypto assets has recently experienced significant tumult as evidenced by the bankruptcy filings of several significant crypto players, including Three Arrows Capital, Voyager Digital, Celsius Networks, FTX and, most recently, BlockFi. These bankruptcy cases give rise to numerous issues for investors holding crypto assets, which can be mitigated with proper diligence and planning. In addition, there are several estate planning and trust-specific considerations that should be addressed when holding crypto assets (or determining whether to invest in crypto assets).

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 recently enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA) contains important temporary amendments to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including several that impact both landlords and tenants under commercial real estate leases.

Small-business debtors can seek an additional extension of time to pay rent

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: