The expression “dilapidations” refers to any breach of lease covenants which relate to the condition of a leased property. This can apply to, among other things, a tenant’s covenants to repair the premises, to decorate or to remove alterations.

The process for ensuring that dilapidations are remedied usually takes place at the end of a lease, and any such dilapidations are commonly labelled “terminal” or “lease end” dilapidations. The procedure for determining liability can be complex and can potentially end up in Court.

When negotiating a commercial lease, it is in the landlord’s best interest to require that securities be provided by the prospective tenant in order to protect the landlord against the tenant’s failure to perform its obligations under the lease. A frequent cause of a tenant’s inability to perform its obligations is its insolvency or financial difficulties.

If a debtor seeks to sell, pursuant to a 363 sale, real property as to which it is the landlord under an unexpired prepetition lease, can such property be sold “free and clear” of the non-debtor tenant’s leasehold interest?

Two sections of the Bankruptcy Code addressing leases sometimes work in tandem with each other, but some courts are creating a conflict.

Section 363 gives bankruptcy courts the power to approve the sale of the assets of a bankruptcy debtor, free and clear of any liens, claims or interests in the property, under certain conditions.

Section 365 gives bankruptcy courts the power to approve the termination of unexpired leases of real estate or to approve their assumption and assignment, also under certain conditions.

Do a lessee’s possessory interests in real property survive a “free and clear” sale of the property under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code? In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said “no,” holding that section 365(h) did not protect the interest of the lessee in the context of a section 363 sale when there had been no prior formal rejection of the lease under section 365.

In a divided opinion Tuesday, the Court of Appeals held that a lease and guaranty are separate contracts, even when the guaranty is incorporated into the lease. SeeFriday Investments, LLC v. Bally Total Fitness of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. For this reason, the court held, a guaranty might be discharged in bankruptcy – even where the tenant assumes the lease to which it is attached and incorporated.

A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has fanned the smoldering dispute among courts regarding the scope of asset sales in bankruptcy. In the In re Spanish Peaks Holdings II, LLC decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s holding that sale of commercial real estate can, in certain circumstances, be free and clear of all liens, claims, encumbrances, and interests, including a leasehold interest. In other words, a tenant of a bankrupt landlord could find itself with no interest in the property following the sale.

​In the recent unreported decision, Bank of Nova Scotia et al v. Virginia Hills Oil Corp. et al, File No. 1701-02184, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that not all municipal property tax claims are priority secured claims in an insolvency.

Minding the Gap

JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Limited -v- Davies Haulage Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 267

Summary

The Court of Appeal has closed an important loophole benefitting tenants that are considering options for insolvency.

A recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals may have muddied the question of the impact of collateral rent assignments on a debtor’s ability to re-organize under chapter 11.