In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.

The U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of existing liens, but does not permit a secured creditor to credit-bid at the sale. The unanimous ruling written by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kennedy recused) resolved a split among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a debtor's chapter 11 plan is confirmable when it proposes an auction sale of a secured creditor's assets free and clear of liens without permitting that creditor to "credit bid" its claims but instead provides the creditor with the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2011).

In re Heller Ehrman, LLP No. 10-CV-03134 2011 WL 635224 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011)

In In re Heller Ehrman, LLP, the court analyzed whether the statutory cap imposed on a landlord’s damages resulting from the rejection of a lease should be computed based on the time remaining in the lease, or the full damages resulting from the rejection. While noting a split of authority, the District Court determined that the computation of the cap should be based on a temporal measure to be consistent with statutory language.

Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.

In re Goody’s Family Clothing, Inc- F3d – 2010 WL 2671929 (3d Cir June 29, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In this edition of the Landlord’s Corner, we review various cases that address the (i) rights of landlords to recover their property post-rejection, (ii) whether payments pursuant to a termination of lease agreement constitute preferential transfers and (iii) whether a lease could be retroactively rejected in the absence of a formal motion to reject.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a long-awaited decision that many practitioners had hoped would provide insight into the permissible breadth of third-party releases and injunctions often contained in confirmed chapter 11 plans. The high court, however, narrowly resolved the issue presented in Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 129 S.Ct. 2195 (2009), and left open that ultimate question.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a lower court ruling that lease termination fees can be considered preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code, subject to avoidance. The court’s holding reinforces concerns over whether landlords can structure lease terminations in a manner that protects them from preference recovery.