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.

Business rates liability is complex and the question of who is liable if occupiers become insolvent is one that often arises during periods of economic uncertainty, such as the pandemic.

Business rates liability for insolvent companies

Business rates liability attaches to specific units of property known as “hereditaments”.

Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd and others (Respondents) v Rossendale Borough Council and another (Appellants)

The Supreme Court has delivered its keenly anticipated judgment in a case concerning the validity of two business rates mitigation schemes. The schemes under scrutiny involved property owners letting unoccupied properties to special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”) which benefitted from a business rates exemption and therefore allowed both the property owners and the SPVs to avoid liability for business rates.

The CVA challenge

The landlords’ claim against the Debenhams CVA was put forward on five grounds:

1. Future rent is not a “debt” and so the landlords are not creditors, such that the CVA cannot bind them

REJECTED: The definition of “debt” is broad enough to include pecuniary contingent liabilities, such as future rent.

2. A CVA cannot operate to reduce rent payable under leases: it is automatically unfairly prejudicial