On Oct. 27, 2020, Judge Marvin Isgur for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that (1) a make-whole premium was not interest or unmatured interest and thus not subject to disallowance, (2) a make-whole claim was enforceable as liquidated damages under New York law and (3) the solvent debtor exception survived the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code and the Noteholders were entitled to postpetition interest at the contractual default rate.

As discussed in previousposts, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”) was signed into law on December 27, 2020, largely to address the harsh economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Part 2: Amendments Affecting Mortgage Lenders and Landlords

As discussed in a previous post, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”), which was enacted on December 27, 2020 in response to the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, amended numerous provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. This post discusses amendments specifically affecting landlords.

The bankruptcy trustee of a bank holding company was not entitled to a consolidated corporate tax refund when a bank subsidiary had incurred losses generating the refund, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 26, 2020. Rodriguez v. FDIC (In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.), 2020 WL 2702425(10th Cir May 26, 2020). On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit, as directed, applied "Colorado law to resolve" the question of "who owns the federal tax refund." Id., at 2.

On December 27, 2020, in response to the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and to supplement the CARES Act enacted in March 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”) was enacted. In addition to providing $900 billion in pandemic relief, the Act benefits both debtors and creditors by temporarily modifying the following sections of the Bankruptcy Code, which may be of particular interest to creditors:

If a creditor is holding property of a party that files bankruptcy, is it “exercising control over” such property (and violating the automatic stay) by refusing the debtor’s turnover demands? According to the Supreme Court, the answer is no – instead, the stay under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code only applies to affirmative acts that disturb the status quo as of the filing date. In other words, the mere retention of property of a debtor after the filing of a bankruptcy case does not violate the automatic stay.

A lender’s state law tort claims against “non-debtor third-parties for tortious interference with a contract” were “not preempted” by “federal bankruptcy law,” held the New York Court of Appeals on Nov. 24, 2020. Sutton 58 Associates LLC v. Pilevsky, 2020 WL 6875979, *1 (N.Y. Ct. Appeals, Nov. 24, 2020) (4-3). In a split opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of a lender’s complaint against the debtors’ non-debtor insiders. The lender will still have to prove its case at trial.

The Asserted Claims

On December 1, 2020, certain amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure take effect. The amendments largely modify rules governing bankruptcy appeals, but also impact Rules 2002 and 2004. The changes are as follows:

 In a decision published October 19, 2020, Judge Frank J. Bailey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts found that an Indian tribe was not subject to the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay.

Over the summer, we wrote about why health care companies may want to consider buying assets out of bankruptcy, taking advantage of the Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sale process (a “363 Sale”). We are back with our second post, to provide more detail to the process and discuss some pros and cons of 363 Sales.