A fundamental principle of bankruptcy law provides that similarly situated creditors are to be treated similarly. That concept seems straightforward, but applying it in today’s complex corporate restructuring environment is not, as was illustrated in the reorganization of Peabody Energy Corporation (“Peabody” or “the Company”).

Upon receiving notice of a debtor’s bankruptcy case, the prudent debt collector typically files a proof of claim, in the hope of receiving some distribution from the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. Absent a fraudulent claim by the debt collector, the Bankruptcy Code specifically provides for the filing of claims against the debtor’s estate. So how could a debt collector be sued for doing what the Code allows? It could happen if debts a collector actually holds are barred from enforcement under a state statute of limitations.

In a rare move against long-standing precedent, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently reversed course in its district on calculating allowed damages when debtor-tenants in bankruptcy reject commercial leases. This decision could limit landlords’ damage claims if those rejected leases are long term and contain rent escalation clauses. The case, In re Cortlandt Liquidating LLC, et al. Case No. 20-12097-MEW (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb.