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.
Recientes resoluciones judiciales han puesto en el foco la problemática aprobación judicial de una liquidación societaria cuando existe una situación de bloqueo por parte de alguno de los socios que impide adoptar acuerdos. Analizamos, a continuación, lo que han dicho los tribunales sobre los acuerdos sociales negativos y su posible impugnabilidad.
(SJM nº 13 de Madrid de 23 de marzo de 2021 y SAP de La Coruña de 1 de abril de 2022)
El Consejo de Ministros ha acordado extender el plazo de solicitud de la financiación avaladapor el Instituto de Crédito Oficial (ICO), CESCE o CERSA (la financiación avalada), así como elevar los umbrales económicos relativos a la refinanciación de la misma, trasladando dichas modificaciones al Código de Buenas Prácticas.
Las medidas que ahora se ven reforzadas o modificadas tienen su origen en el Real Decreto-ley 16/2020, de 28 de abril –del que Garrigues ya se hizo eco en esta publicación–, que fue posteriormente sustituido por la
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.