Does the owner bear the risk in case of bankruptcy?

Due to the tense situation in the hotel industry, various lessees are currently approaching their lessors asking for deferral or abatement of rent payments for the period ahead. There are many suggestions for possible compromises - but the insolvency law situation must always be taken into account in order not to create any risks for tenants or lessors. The comments in this article apply equally to hotel usufructuary leases.

Currently discussed compromises

Eigentümerrisiko im Insolvenzfall?

Aufgrund der angespannten Situation in der Hotelbranche treten aktuell diverse Mieter an ihre Vermieter heran und bitten um Stundung oder Erlass der Mietzahlungen für die kommende Zeit. Die Vorschläge für mögliche Kompromisse sind vielfältig – dabei ist aber immer auch die insolvenzrechtliche Situation zu beachten, um hier keine Risiken für Mieter oder Vermieter zu schaffen. Die Ausführungen dieses Beitrags gelten gleichermaßen auch für Hotelpachtverträge.

Aktuell diskutierte Kompromisse

It is not unusual for a creditor of a debtor to cry foul that a non-debtor affiliate has substantial assets, but has not joined the bankruptcy. In some cases, the creditor may assert that even though its claim, on its face, is solely against the debtor, the debtor and the non-debtor conducted business as a single unit, or that the debtor indicated that the assets of the non-debtor were available to satisfy claims. In these circumstances, the creditor would like nothing more than to drag that asset-rich non-debtor into the bankruptcy to satisfy its claims. Is that possible?

Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

There are numerous reasons why a company might use more than one entity for its operations or organization: to silo liabilities, for tax advantages, to accommodate a lender, or for general organizational purposes. Simply forming a separate entity, however, is not enough. Corporate formalities must be followed or a court could effectively collapse the separate entities into one. A recent opinion by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, Lassman v.