Landlords are receiving a deluge of requests to provide rent relief to commercial tenants whose operations have either been closed or substantially restricted as a result of state and local governments’ COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and related restrictions. Some tenants are using the threat of a bankruptcy filing as leverage to obtain these concessions. Meanwhile, landlords are facing their own challenges with mortgage lenders and servicers as they try to service real estate loans with limited available cash.
Goulston & Storrs bankruptcy attorney Doug Rosner recently collaborated with Thomson Reuters to create a three-part video series regarding alternative solutions to the financial problems of distressed companies. This summary highlights the key elements to a successful out-of-court restructuring (part two of the series).
Goulston & Storrs bankruptcy attorney Doug Rosner recently collaborated with Thomson Reuters to create a three-part video series regarding alternative solutions to the financial problems of distressed companies. This summary highlights the advantages and disadvantages of out-of-court restructuring as an alternative to Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization (part one of the series).
Historically, the interests of landlords whose commercial real estate is occupied by debtors in Chapter 11 proceedings have been generally well protected. Indeed, Section 365(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code requires the debtor to timely perform all of its post-petition obligations under its nonresidential leases of real property — most important among those, rent.
The Bottom Line
In Lariat Cos. v. Wigley(In re Wigley), Case No. 18-3489 (8th Cir. March 9, 2020), the Eighth Circuit held that a claim against Debtor B that arose out of a fraudulent transfer made by Debtor A to Debtor B was subject to the statutory cap applicable to lease rejection damages where Debtor A’s underlying liability was premised on its breach of a lease.
What Happened?
The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
In Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. v. Keach (In re Montreal, Me. & Atl. Ry.), No. 19-1894 (1st Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), the First Circuit held that when determining the value of legal claims as collateral, the party with the burden of proof must establish the likely validity of the claim and the likelihood of recovery — demonstrating possible damages alone does not suffice.
What Happened?
Background
Lender liability typically refers to the situation where a lender exercises such a high degree of control over the day-to-day activities of the borrower that it becomes exposed to claims that otherwise would be asserted against the borrower. A recent decision by a New York Supreme Court judge determined that lenders may be exposed to liability even in the absence of control. This result, if upheld, may gain newfound importance in the COVID-19 era where lenders may turn to courts to help them protect their assets.
Editor’s Note:Legal Corner contains case summaries and analysis of recent court decisions that impact retail leasing and lease administration. These summaries focus on the leasing issues covered in each case and do not include detailed discussions or analysis of the procedural and peripheral issues in the cases.
Is a Liquidated Damages Clause Enforceable?