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
The March 2023 banking crisis has been an unexpected “stress test” for dealing with liquidity issues.
When state regulators closed Silicon Valley Bank this past Friday, many startups understandably faced severe liquidity issues triggered by the sudden and unexpected loss of access to their deposits.
On January 4, 2023, Judge Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a much-awaited decision in the Celsius Network LLC (along with its affiliated debtors, “Celsius” or the “Debtors”) chapter 11 cases relating to the ownership of crypto assets deposited by customers in the Celsius “Earn” rewards program accounts.
Over the span of two weeks in July 2022, two of the largest retail-facing cryptocurrency platforms, Celsius and Voyager, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
In New York, it is a standard practice to name all tenants residing in a building when foreclosing upon the property.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the CAA), which President Trump signed into law on December 27, 2020, amends several provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. While a number of the amendments are applicable only to small businesses (e.g., businesses eligible to file under the new small-business subchapter of the Bankruptcy Code and/or businesses eligible to receive PPP loans), several others have more general application, as discussed below.
* * *
Amendments of More General Application
In the United States, in a typical plain vanilla lending arrangement, if a counterparty files for bankruptcy, an automatic stay of enforcement actions is imposed that would prevent a lender from (i) foreclosing on the property of the debtor, (ii) terminating contracts with the debtor, (iii) commencing or continuing certain enforcement actions against the debtor or its property and/or (iv) setting off amounts owed under such arrangements (in each case unless a motion is filed and granted in the related bankruptcy case).
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND