Real estate lenders and borrowers everywhere are trying to figure out what to do with properties that are either sitting vacant or underperforming pre-pandemic expectations. In New York, a number of mezzanine foreclosures have been pursued with varying degrees of success when challenged in court. Some lenders have been shopping their loans, mostly at discounts to par that are not large enough to create substantial deal flow in the marketplace.

The question is not if but how deeply the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic will disrupt businesses and impact future operations. That answer differs based upon each company’s industry, access to cash and other capital, debt structure, ability to manage expenses, lost revenues, and operational interruption. Certain industries, such as airlines and airline service companies, hotels, restaurants, sports and entertainment, media, and retailers, among others, are suffering immediate adverse effects. Our healthcare resources are being stretched thin.

For retail companies contemplating filing for chapter 11 protection, not only is the time of year of the filing important, but also the expected time frame the case will last. This is particularly important given that the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code modified Section 365(d)(4) to provide that Debtors must assume or reject unexpired leases of nonresidential property within 120 days of the filing.

InGrayson Consulting, Inc. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC (In re Derivium Capital LLC), 716 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit examined whether certain securities transferred and payments made during the course of a Ponzi scheme could be avoided as fraudulent transfers under sections 544 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court upheld a judgment denying avoidance of pre-bankruptcy transfers of securities because the debtor did not have an “interest” in the securities at the time of the transfers.

On January 10, 2012, a Florida bankruptcy court ruled in In re Pearlman, 462 B.R. 849 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012), that substantive consolidation is purely a bankruptcy remedy and that it accordingly did not have the power to consolidate the estate of a debtor in bankruptcy with the assets and affairs of a nondebtor. In so ruling, the court staked out a position on a contentious issue that has created a widening rift among bankruptcy and appellate courts regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over nondebtor entities.