In a departure from prior precedent in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), a recent opinion by Judge Michael E. Wiles in In re Cortlandt Liquidating LLC,[1] effectively lowered the Bankruptcy Code section 502(b)(6) cap on rejection damages that a commercial real estate landlord may claim, by holding that the cap should be calculated using the “Time Approach,” rather than the “Rent Approach.”
Calculation of Lease Rejection Damages
In New York, it is a standard practice to name all tenants residing in a building when foreclosing upon the property.
On Sunday, December 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which provides $900 billion in a second wave of economic stimulus relief for industries and individuals faced with challenges from the COVID-19 coronavirus.
The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered unprecedented levels of business disruption and forced numerous companies into bankruptcy in an effort to preserve dwindling liquidity and postpone creditor demands. Retailers, whose brick-and-mortar locations were already struggling to adapt to an increasingly online marketplace, have been among the hardest hit. A number of bankruptcy judges, faced with the prospect of an avalanche of forced liquidations, have thrown these debtors a lifeline by approving requests to suspend lease payments.
If the current coronavirus (COVID-19) situation persists, real estate lenders increasingly will be faced with the need to restructure loans in their portfolios. Lenders that held non-performing real estate loans during prior real estate downturns (e.g., 2008, 1990s) have no doubt embarked on the real estate workout process countless times before. However, with the passage of time, the lessons learned by real estate lenders of earlier eras may have faded from memory. Moreover, many of the lenders active in real estate finance today were not even on the scene during prior recessions.
French businesses face significant business disruption, as does any country faced with restrictions in place to curb movement of people because of Covid-19.
In this blog we consider what the restrictions are in France and what help is on offer.
What restrictions are in place and why is this impacting businesses?
The current restrictions, announced on March 16, 2020 by the President of the Republic are designed to minimize contact and travel and will be in place from Tuesday, March 17 at 12:00 p.m., for a minimum of fifteen days.
In this article, we focus on working capital and consider ways a business can seek to weather the storm and preserve all-important liquidity through this challenging period.
Practical Tips
Given the unprecedented challenges presented by COVID-19 globally, what can senior management do in order to manage and mitigate the risk to the company's financial health?
Une ordonnance, n° 2017-1519 du 2 novembre 2017, porte adaptation du droit français au nouveau règlement européen relatif aux procédures d'insolvabilité (Règlement (UE) n° 2015/848 du 20 mai 2015).
Le nouveau Règlement, révisant le règlement (CE) n° 1346/2000 du Conseil du 29 mai 2000, est entré en vigueur dans les États membres le 26 juin 2017.
L'objectif de l’ordonnance est de :
As 26 June 2017 approaches – the date of entry into effect of the Recast EU Insolvency Regulation (2015/8484/EU) – we look in detail at the new provisions for co-ordinating the insolvency proceedings of members of a pan-European group of companies and consider whether the new proposals for co-operation will be compulsory, the practicalities of who will pay the co-ordinator’s fees and whether the creditors can have a say in the process.
BACKGROUND
It is not always easy to prioritize between the various goals pursued in every insolvency legislation, namely; the continuation of the company, preservation of the jobs, the general economic/public interest and the payment of dividends to creditors.
There is no clear hierarchy in French law amongst these major targets and French case law appears fairly pragmatic. However compared to Insolvency regulations in other countries, French legislation and French case law appear very protective of the interests of the employees.
This seems obvious when one considers, for example,