Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently provided critical guidance on what the court observed as the “psychedelic confusion” surrounding the intersection of Bankruptcy Code §365, governing the assumption and rejection of executory contracts, and Bankruptcy Code §503, governing administrative priority. (The classification of any claims entitled to administrative priority status would allow for such claims to be paid in full, as opposed to treatment as prepetition unsecured claims which would receive a discounted distribution.) Specifically, in Finance of America v. Mortgage Winddown (In re Ditech Holding), No. 21-cv-10038 (LAK), 2022 WL 4448867 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2022), U.S. District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan sought to answer the “single question” of in what circumstances (if any) a postpetition breach of an executory contract could give rise to an administrative expense priority claim? (Bankruptcy Code §365(g) provides that rejection of a prepetition contract “constitutes a breach of contract” immediately prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy filing, meaning the resulting rejection damage claim is a general unsecured claim. See, 11 U.S.C. §365(g). As a result, the payment of the claim “can be thought of as being in little tiny Bankruptcy Dollars, which may be worth only ten cents in U.S. dollars.” Cohen v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Group (In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group), 138 B.R. 687, 706 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992) (quoting Jay Lawrence Westbrook, A Functional Analysis of Executory Contracts, 74 Minn. L. Rev. 227, 228 (1989)).) The court rejected the Bankruptcy Court’s analysis that focused on whether a contract extension created a new postpetition contract or modified an existing contract under state law. See, Finance of America v. Mortgage Winddown (In re Ditech Holding), No. 19-10412 (JLG), 2021 WL 4928724 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2021). Instead, the court concluded that the appropriate test is whether the postpetition breach was within the parties’ “fair contemplation” at the time they entered the contract. If a postpetition breach was not within the parties’ fair contemplation, then the breach is deemed to arise postpetition and the resulting claims are eligible for administrative expense priority to the extent they constitute “actual, necessary costs and expenses” of preserving the estate.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Delaware District Court Could Guide Supreme Court Purdue Pharma Decision
By Michael L. Cook
A bankruptcy court properly held that derivative claims based on “piercing the corporate veil theory of liability [were] released under” a confirmed reorganization plan, but that direct “claims for negligent undertaking” were not released and “could be asserted” in state court against the debtors’ equity sponsors.
Court Caps Landlord's Bankruptcy Claim Against Lease Guarantor
By Andrew C. Kassner and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.
A big issue in real estate and retail bankruptcies, among others, involves the disposition of commercial real estate leases, given the potential magnitude of landlord damage claims under state law resulting from a tenant’s default under a long-term lease.
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Rejects Equity Holder's Challenge to Revoke Confirmation Order
By Lawrence J. Kotler
The equity owner asserted that the confirmation order previously entered by the court should be revoked based on the equity owner’s claim that value was lost due to improper sale and marketing efforts by the debtors and its professionals both pre- and post-bankruptcy and, as such, they should have been “in the money” and entitled to a distribution under the confirmed plan.
By George Williams
One of the major catalysts of the “Crypto Winter” that began in 2022 was the collapse of Terraform Labs’s native token LUNA in May 2022. Now two years and a dozen crypto-related bankruptcies later, Terraform Labs has filed for Chapter 11 protection.