A New York bankruptcy judge has refused to permit a debtor to use rents generated by its real property because the rents absolutely assigned to the lender pre-petition were not property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate.2 Before the bankruptcy filing, the lender sent the borrower a default notice and terminated the borrower's license to collect rents. The lender also directed tenants to pay rents to it and not the borrower, commenced a foreclosure action, and sought appointment of a receiver.

Anyone in the commercial real estate business can tell you that the past couple of years have seen a significant uptick in the number of commercial foreclosures and owner bankruptcies. While it does appear that the market is improving, we’re certainly not out of the woods. We are likely to see headlines declaring the latest big bankruptcy or foreclosure for a few more quarters. Sometimes lost in the headlines is the impact such issues have on the tenants in these commercial properties.

In a decision that clarifies the rights of secured lenders to rents generated by a mortgaged property under New York law, a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York has held that rents which were assigned pre-petition pursuant to an assignment of rents executed in connection with a mortgage loan do not belong to the bankruptcy estate because the Lender took sufficient affirmative actions to perfect its rights over the rents.1

Introduction

In re Heller Ehrman, LLP No. 10-CV-03134 2011 WL 635224 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011)

In In re Heller Ehrman, LLP, the court analyzed whether the statutory cap imposed on a landlord’s damages resulting from the rejection of a lease should be computed based on the time remaining in the lease, or the full damages resulting from the rejection. While noting a split of authority, the District Court determined that the computation of the cap should be based on a temporal measure to be consistent with statutory language.

As revealed in a recent bankruptcy case, purchasers of contaminated property need to have a very clear understanding of their contractual remedies before proceeding with self-help. The case (In re Evans Industries, Inc., No.

A commercial landlord’s failure to terminate properly a commercial lease can lead to long drawn-out legal battles between the commercial landlord and tenant, before and after the tenant files for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  In particular, a commercial landlord’s failure to elect and effectively pursue its remedy of lease termination may preclude any subsequent action in bankruptcy to gain possession of the premises even after a writ of possession has issued.

The US Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") recently upheld the validity of a commercial lease provision by which a debtor/tenant waived its rights to seek relief from forfeiture (i.e., termination) of the lease under California law. As a result, the debtor/tenant had no right in the bankruptcy case to assume the lease. In re Art and Architecture Books of the 21st Century, Case No. 2:13-bk-14135-RK (September 18, 2014).

Who Will Think of the Tenants: Split in Authority Regarding the Interplay Between Bankruptcy Code Sections 363(f) and 365(h)(1)(A)

In drafting the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relating to nonresidential real property, Congress intended commercial landlords to be “entitled to significant safeguards.”1 Examples of the protections afforded to commercial landlords include requiring a debtor to remain current in its payment of post-petition rent;2 allowing landlords to drawdown on a letter of credit without prior bankruptcy court approval;3 permitting landlords to setoff pre-petition unpaid rent against a security deposit and/or lease rejection damages;4 recognizing that a tenant’s possessory rights in nonresident