Bankruptcy Code Section 502(b)(6) establishes a Statutory Cap on the damages a landlord can claim arising from the termination of a lease in bankruptcy case. Courts have split on how to calculate the Statutory Cap, whether and how to apply letters of credit to reduce the Statutory Cap, and whether the Statutory Cap applies to a landlord’s claims against a lessee’s debtor-guarantor.
On March 26, 2024, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion addressing the foregoing issues:
The existence of a bankruptcy option is a good thing for any debtor-creditor situation that is highly stressed—whether the bankruptcy option is used or not.
This is especially true in mass-tort cases where a potential exists for (i) hugely-disparate results for similarly situated plaintiffs, and (ii) debilitating delays in the progress of litigation.
In France, losses incurred by a company in a given fiscal year can be carried forward to offset profits in subsequent years, without time limit. The annual offset against future profits is limited to a maximum of €1 million, plus 50% of the portion of profit exceeding this threshold. Any unused balance is carried forward to the following year. It is also possible to opt to carry back losses against the previous year's profits, up to a maximum of €1 million.
When a bankruptcy debtor rejects a lease, a landlord is entitled to a rejection damages claim. Under Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code, a landlord’s claim is capped at “the rent reserved by such lease, without acceleration, for the greater of one year, or 15%, not to exceed three years, of the remaining term of such lease.”
Courts have taken two different approaches in interpreting what constitutes the “15%” in the statute: (A) the remaining rent due under the lease; or (B) the remaining time under the lease.
The “Rent Approach”
An insolvency administrator may lose their right to restitution arising from an insolvency avoidance if they are prevented from exercising the right in good faith by their conduct in the context of the conclusion of a redemption agreement, by which the creditor (and opposing party) waives rights to separate satisfaction.
Decision
In the recent High Court case of Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2024] EWHC 521 (Ch) the Court was asked to answer that very question. David Garner and Owen John of our Commercial Disputes Team analyse the outcome below.
The case is of potential importance to UK businesses that conduct business outside of the UK.
Background
The Hungarian Supreme Court has ruled that in a lawsuit initiated by an insolvent debtor, a creditor’s claim arising after the commencement date of the liquidation cannot be enforced as a set-off claim against the debtor.
Background
En el escaso transcurso de este año 2024 ya hemos tenido el honor de recibir dos interesantes resoluciones dictadas por la Sala Primera del Tribunal Supremo en materia concursal.
Estas dos resoluciones ponen de relieve cuestiones en las que, habiendo la Sala apreciado y justificado el interés casacional para entrar en el fondo del asunto, precisamente, en uno de esos supuestos, por no haberse tratado con anterioridad, hacen que nos traigan consigo pronunciamientos que serán de plena aplicación en la práctica.
On 4 March 2024, the High Court approved the amended restructuring plan (the Plan) of Project Lietzenburger Straße Holdco S.à.r.L (the Company) a Luxembourg incorporated company part of the German Aggregate Holdings Group, despite refusing to sanction its original plan.
As seen in the recent proliferation of bankruptcy cases seeking a structured dismissal or conversion after a successful sale, debtors constantly seek creative and efficient ways to wind up a case, including through a traditional plan of liquidation. Yet, as discussed below, debtors must ensure that any proposed voting procedures for a plan comply with section 1126 of the Bankruptcy Code, or are at least supported by, or supportable with, prior precedent.