Preferences are a common issue in bankruptcy proceedings. A general overview of preferences in bankruptcy can be found here.

The Bankruptcy Code provides several affirmative defenses to assist creditors in mitigating or eliminating their preference exposure. We have previously addressed the new value defense2 and the ordinary course of business defense3. This article will briefly address another common affirmative defense: the contemporaneous exchange defense.

Highlights

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.

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”

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.

Congress, the federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court all need to recognize this historical reality:

• bankruptcy is an efficient and effective tool for resolving mass tort cases, as demonstrated by cases with huge-majority approval votes from tort victims.

And all those institutions need to prevent anti-bankruptcy biases, legal technicalities, and hold-out groups from torpedoing the huge-majority votes.

Supreme Court moving in the right direction?

Serving as the stalking horse bidder in a Section 363 sale1 can provide a buyer with financial and legal protections, as well as better position the buyer to ultimately acquire the debtor's assets.

General Overview

The American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force has issued its “Preliminary Report” on “Maintaining the $7,500,000 Debt Cap for Subchapter V Eligibility.” This article quotes from and summarizes the Report.

Recommendation

The Task Force recommends making permanent the $7,500,000 debt cap for Subchapter V eligibility, which is set to expire and revert to $3,024,725 on June 21, 2024.

Supporting Factors

Whether a solar system is a “fixture” sounds like a mundane legal issue – but it has significant implications for the residential solar industry and for the financing of residential solar systems. If a system is regarded as a “fixture” of the house to which it is attached, then the enforceability and priority of the finance company’s lien on the system will be subject to applicable real estate law.