The Financially Troubled Company

Showing: 15 - 21 of 50 Articles
Business Bankruptcy Issues The Financially Troubled Company

Assignments For The Benefit Of Creditors: Simple As ABC?

Companies in financial trouble are often forced to liquidate their assets to pay creditors. While a Chapter 11 bankruptcy sometimes makes the most sense, other times a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is required, and in still other situations a corporate dissolution may be best. This post examines another of the options, the assignment for the benefit of creditors, commonly known as an "ABC."

A Few Caveats. It’s important to remember that determining which path an insolvent company should take depends on the specific facts and circumstances involved. As in many areas of the law, one size most definitely does not fit all for financially troubled companies. With those caveats in mind, let’s consider one scenario sometimes seen when a venture-backed or other investor-funded company runs out of money.

One Scenario. After a number of rounds of investment, the investors of a privately held corporation have decided not to put in more money to fund the company’s operations. The company will be out of cash within a few months and borrowing from the company’s lender is no longer an option. The accounts payable list is growing (and aging) and some creditors have started to demand payment. A sale of the business may be possible, however, and a term sheet from a potential buyer is anticipated soon. The company’s real property lease will expire in nine months, but it’s possible that a buyer might want to take over the lease.

  • A Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing is problematic because there is insufficient cash to fund operations going forward, no significant revenues are being generated, and debtor in possession financing seems highly unlikely unless the buyer itself would make a loan. 
  • The board prefers to avoid a Chapter 7 bankruptcy because it’s concerned that a bankruptcy trustee, unfamiliar with the company’s technology, would not be able to generate the best recovery for creditors.

The ABC Option. In many states, another option that may be available to companies in financial trouble is an assignment for the benefit of creditors (or "general assignment for the benefit of creditors" as it is sometimes called). The ABC is an insolvency proceeding governed by state law rather than federal bankruptcy law.

California ABCs. In California, where ABCs have been done for years, the primary governing law is found in California Code of Civil Procedure sections 493.010 to 493.060 and sections 1800 to 1802, among other provisions of California law. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1802 sets forth, in remarkably brief terms, the main procedural requirements for a company (or individual) making, and an assignee accepting, a general assignment for the benefit of creditors:

1802.  (a) In any general assignment for the benefit of creditors, as defined in Section 493.010, the assignee shall, within 30 days after the assignment has been accepted in writing, give written notice of the assignment to the assignor’s creditors, equityholders, and other parties in interest as set forth on the list provided by the assignor pursuant to subdivision (c).
   (b) In the notice given pursuant to subdivision (a), the assignee shall establish a date by which creditors must file their claims to be able to share in the distribution of proceeds of the liquidation of the assignor’s assets.  That date shall be not less than 150 days and not greater than 180 days after the date of the first giving of the written notice to creditors and parties in interest.
   (c) The assignor shall provide to the assignee at the time of the making of the assignment a list of creditors, equityholders, and other parties in interest, signed under penalty of  perjury, which shall include the names, addresses, cities, states, and ZIP Codes for each person together with the amount of that person’s anticipated claim in the assignment proceedings.

In California, the company and the assignee enter into a formal "Assignment Agreement." The company must also provide the assignee with a list of creditors, equityholders, and other interested parties (names, addresses, and claim amounts). The assignee is required to give notice to creditors of the assignment, setting a bar date for filing claims with the assignee that is between five to six months later.

ABCs In Other States. Many other states have ABC statutes although in practice they have been used to varying degrees. For example, ABCs have been more common in California than in states on the East Coast, but important exceptions exist. Delaware corporations can generally avail themselves of Delaware’s voluntary assignment statutes, and its procedures have both similarities and important differences from the approach taken in California. Scott Riddle of the Georgia Bankruptcy Law Blog has an interesting post discussing ABC’s under Georgia law. Florida is another state in which ABCs are done under specific statutory procedures. For an excellent book that has information on how ABCs are conducted in various states, see Geoffrey Berman’s General Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors: The ABCs of ABCs, published by the American Bankruptcy Institute.

Important Features Of ABCs. A full analysis of how ABCs function in a particular state and how one might affect a specific company requires legal advice from insolvency counsel. The following highlights some (but by no means all) of the key features of ABCs:

  • Court Filing Issue. In California, making an ABC does not require a public court filing. Some other states, however, do require a court filing to initiate or complete an ABC.
  • Select The Assignee. Unlike a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee, who is randomly appointed from those on an approved panel, a corporation making an assignment is generally able to choose the assignee.
  • Shareholder Approval. Most corporations require both board and shareholder approval for an ABC because it involves the transfer to the assignee of substantially all of the corporation’s assets. This makes ABCs impractical for most publicly held corporations.
  • Liquidator As Fiduciary. The assignee is a fiduciary to the creditors and is typically a professional liquidator.
  • Assignee Fees. The fees charged by assignees often involve an upfront payment and a percentage based on the assets liquidated.
  • No Automatic Stay. In many states, including California, an ABC does not give rise to an automatic stay like bankruptcy, although an assignee can often block judgment creditors from attaching assets.
  • Event Of Default. The making of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors is typically a default under most contracts. As a result, contracts may be terminated upon the assignment under an ipso facto clause.
  • Proof Of Claim. For creditors, an ABC process generally involves the submission to the assignee of a proof of claim by a stated deadline or bar date, similar to bankruptcy. (Click on the link for an example of an ABC proof of claim form.)
  • Employee Priority. Employee and other claim priorities are governed by state law and may involve different amounts than apply under the Bankruptcy Code. In California, for example, the employee wage and salary priority is $4,300, not the $10,950 amount currently in force under the Bankruptcy Code.
  • 20 Day Goods. Generally, ABC statutes do not have a provision similar to that under Bankruptcy Code Section 503(b)(9), which gives an administrative claim priority to vendors who sold goods in the ordinary course of business to a debtor during the 20 days before a bankruptcy filing. As a result, these vendors may recover less in an ABC than in a bankruptcy case, subject to assertion of their reclamation rights.
  • Landlord Claim. Unlike bankruptcy, there generally is no cap imposed on a landlord’s claim for breach of a real property lease in an ABC.
  • Sale Of Assets. In many states, including California, sales by the assignee of the company’s assets are completed as a private transaction without approval of a court. However, unlike a bankruptcy Section 363 sale, there is usually no ability to sell assets "free and clear" of liens and security interests without the consent or full payoff of lienholders. Likewise, leases or executory contracts cannot be assigned without required consents from the other contracting party.
  • Avoidance Actions. Most states allow assignees to pursue preferences and fraudulent transfers. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that the Bankruptcy Code pre-empts California’s preference statute, California Code of Civil Procedure section 1800. Nevertheless, to date the California state courts have refused to follow the Ninth Circuit’s decision and still permit assignees to sue for preferences in California state court. In February 2008, a Delaware state court followed the California state court decisions, refusing either to follow the Ninth Circuit position or to hold that the California preference statute was pre-empted by the Bankruptcy Code. The Delaware court was required to apply California’s ABC preference statute because the avoidance action arose out of an earlier California ABC.

The Scenario Revisited. With this overview in mind, let’s return to our company in distress.

  • The prospect of a term sheet from a potential buyer may influence whether our hypothetical company should choose an ABC or another approach. Some buyers will refuse to purchase assets outside of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy or a Chapter 7 case. Others are comfortable with the ABC process and believe it provides an added level of protection from fraudulent transfer claims compared to purchasing the assets directly from the insolvent company. Depending on the value to be generated by a sale, these considerations may lead the company to select one approach over the other available options.
  • In states like California where no court approval is required for a sale, the ABC can also mean a much faster closing — often within a day or two of the ABC itself provided that the assignee has had time to perform due diligence on the sale and any alternatives — instead of the more typical 30-60 days required for bankruptcy court approval of a Section 363 sale. Given the speed at which they can be done, in the right situation an ABC can permit a "going concern" sale to be achieved.
  • Secured creditors with liens against the assets to be sold will either need to be paid off through the sale or will have to consent to release their liens; forced "free and clear" sales generally are not possible in an ABC.
  • If the buyer decides to take the real property lease, the landlord will need to consent to the lease assignment. Unlike bankruptcy, the ABC process generally cannot force a landlord or other third party to accept assignment of a lease or executory contract.
  • If the buyer decides not to take the lease, or no sale occurs, the fact that only nine months remains on the lease means that this company would not benefit from bankruptcy’s cap on landlord claims. If the company’s lease had years remaining, and if the landlord were unwilling to agree to a lease termination approximating the result under bankruptcy’s landlord claim cap, the company would need to consider whether a bankruptcy filing was necessary to avoid substantial dilution to other unsecured creditor claims that a large, uncapped landlord claim would produce in an ABC.
  • If the potential buyer walks away, the assignee would be responsible for determining whether a sale of all or a part of the assets was still possible. In any event, assets would be liquidated by the assignee to the extent feasible and any proceeds would be distributed to creditors in order of their priority through the ABC’s claims process.
  • While other options are available and should be explored, an ABC may make sense for this company depending upon the buyer’s views, the value to creditors and other constituencies that a sale would produce, and a clear-eyed assessment of alternative insolvency methods. 

Conclusion. When weighing all of the relevant issues, an insolvent company’s management and board would be well-served to seek the advice of counsel and other insolvency professionals as early as possible in the process. The old song may say that ABC is as "easy as 1-2-3," but assessing whether an assignment for the benefit of creditors is best for an insolvent company involves the analysis of a myriad of complex factors.

Business Bankruptcy Issues The Financially Troubled Company

New Article Examines Latest Deepening Insolvency Trends

For a number of years, the concept of deepening insolvency has been one of the more hotly debated issues in the insolvency arena. Two of my colleagues in the Bankruptcy & Restructuring group at Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, Michael Klein and Ronald Sussman, have written an interesting article entitled "Tide Has Turned On Deepening Insolvency – Courts Now Rejecting Theory As Cause Of Action," published in the February 2008 issue of the Journal of Corporate Renewal by the Turnaround Management Association. You can read the article by clicking on its title above.

The article gives a succinct overview of the impact of last year’s Delaware Supreme Court decisions in the North American Catholic Educational Programming, Inc. v. Gheewalla and Trenwick America cases (as well as the Chancery Court’s Trenwick decision that was adopted by the Supreme Court). In particular, the article describes how the Gheewalla decision altered the "zone of insolvency" analysis and how Trenwick’s rejection of deepening insolvency as a cause of action in Delaware has led courts in other jurisdictions to follow suit. Directors of financially troubled companies and their counsel will find the article an informative read.

For more information on the Gheewalla decision, including a copy of the Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion, click here. For more on the Trenwick decision, including copies of the Delaware Supreme Court order and Chancery Court opinion, click here.

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

Real Estate Workouts: Are Pre-Bankruptcy Waivers Of The Automatic Stay Enforceable?

This post examines a new decision from the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida involving the enforceability of a pre-bankruptcy waiver of the automatic stay. Let’s first set the stage by taking a look at a not so uncommon fact pattern involving a real estate project in financial trouble.

The Real Estate Workout: Forbearance With A Price. The owner of a troubled real estate development is about to default on a loan secured by the real property. On the eve of foreclosure, the lender agrees to forbear from foreclosing for two months to give the developer time to refinance and save the project.  However, in exchange the lender insists that the developer agree that, in the event of bankruptcy, the lender would have relief from the automatic stay to foreclose. The developer agrees and the forbearance agreement is executed.

The Bankruptcy Aftermath. Unfortunately, the hoped-for financing falls through and the developer files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy for the project just before the rescheduled foreclosure sale. The lender quickly files a motion for relief from stay, asking the bankruptcy court to enforce the pre-bankruptcy relief from stay waiver included in the forbearance agreement. The motion is opposed by the developer, now a Chapter 11 debtor in possession, as well as the official committee of unsecured creditors and junior lienholders.

Is The Waiver Of The Automatic Stay Enforceable? This was the question answered by Bankruptcy Judge John K. Olson in an 18-page decision, issued on February 12, 2008, in the In re Bryan Road, LLC Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The facts were essentially as described above, but a few additional details help put the issue in context.

  • The real estate project involved a 210 unit "dry stack" boat storage facility in Dania Beach, Florida.
  • The lender, which commenced a judicial foreclosure proceeding against the 191 units still owned by the debtor, had been awarded final judgment setting a foreclosure sale.
  • On the morning of the foreclosure sale, the debtor and the lender entered into a forbearance agreement that was approved by the court in the foreclosure proceeding. The forbearance agreement provided for a two-month continuance of the foreclosure sale in exchange for the debtor’s agreement that the lender would have relief from the automatic stay to foreclose in the event of a bankruptcy.
  • The day before the continued foreclosure sale was to take place, the debtor filed its bankruptcy petition.

The Bankruptcy Court’s Analysis. In his decision on the lender’s stay relief motion, Judge Olson first noted that prepetition waivers of the stay will be given "no particular effect as part of initial loan documents" but the "greatest effect if entered into during the course of prior (and subsequently aborted) chapter 11 proceedings." After concluding that a confirmed chapter 11 plan was not required, the Bankruptcy Court looked to four non-exclusive factors, drawn from In re Desai, 282 B.R. 527 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2002), in considering whether stay relief should be granted based on the prepetition waiver:

(1) the sophistication of the party making the waiver; (2) the consideration for the waiver, including the creditor’s risk and the length of time the waiver covers; (3) whether other parties are affected including unsecured creditors and junior lienholders; and (4) the feasibility of the debtor’s plan.

As to the first two factors, the Bankruptcy Court found that the debtor’s counsel was very sophisticated and, although the forbearance period was short, it was sufficient consideration. On the third and fourth factors, the Bankruptcy Court first noted the existence of junior lienholders and approximately $1 million of disputed unsecured claims. However, the Bankruptcy Court then engaged in a detailed analysis leading to the conclusion that the debtor’s plan simply was not feasible. As such, there likely was no value for unsecured creditors in the boat storage project beyond the secured debt and the junior lienholders could protect their own interests under state law. Putting these factors together, the Bankruptcy Court concluded that the forbearance agreement — including the waiver of the automatic stay — should be enforced and the stay was lifted.

A Few Key Take-Aways. With economic conditions continuing to strain a variety of real estate developments, workouts in the shadow of foreclosure may become more common. The In re Bryan Road, LLC decision highlights that in the right case a bankruptcy court may be willing to enforce prepetition stay relief agreements if a bankruptcy is later filed.

  • This is particularly true when the debtor is a single asset real estate entity, it signs an agreement on the eve of foreclosure, and it has few unsecured creditors. In fact, the more the bankruptcy appears to be just a two-party dispute between the debtor and lender, the more likely the prepetition automatic stay waiver will be enforced.
  • On the other hand, when a troubled real estate project has a real chance of reorganizing, and substantial unsecured creditor claims are involved, these agreements more likely will be rejected in favor of traditional relief from stay analysis under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Conclusion. Prepetition stay relief agreements involve complex issues. As with most bankruptcy questions, real estate owners and lenders should get advice from bankruptcy counsel on their specific situation when considering whether to include such a waiver of the automatic stay in any forbearance agreement.

Business Bankruptcy Issues The Financially Troubled Company

Licensing Intellectual Property From An Israeli Company: What Happens If There’s A Bankruptcy?

Many technology companies are based in Israel and license intellectual property to companies in the United States and around the world. This raises an interesting question: what happens if the Israeli company, as licensor, goes into bankruptcy or liquidation in Israel? The latest edition of Cross Border Commentary, a publication by the International Business Practice of my firm, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, has just addressed that very question.

The U.S. Law Answer.  Before turning to Israeli law, let’s look at how this issue plays out under the United States Bankruptcy Code. A licensor in bankruptcy or its bankruptcy trustee has the option of assuming (keeping) or rejecting (breaching) a license. Generally, a debtor licensor can assume a license if it meets the same tests (cures defaults and provides adequate assurance of future performance) required to assume other executory contracts.  Many licensees will not have a problem with assumption of their license as long as the debtor can actually continue to perform. Instead, the real concern for licensees is the fear of losing their rights to the licensed IP, which often can be mission critical technology, if the license is rejected.

  • Special protections. Recognizing this concern, the United States Bankruptcy Code, in Section 365(n), provides licensees with special protections.  If the debtor or trustee rejects a license, under Section 365(n) a licensee can elect to retain its rights to the licensed intellectual property, including even a right to enforce an exclusivity provision. In return, the licensee must continue to make any required royalty payments. The licensee also can retain rights under any agreement supplementary to the license, which includes source code or other forms of technology escrow agreements.  Taken together, these provisions protect a licensee from being stripped of its rights to continue to use the licensed intellectual property.
  • Watch out for trademarks. While many people would expect intellectual property to include trademarks, the Bankruptcy Code has its own limited definition of "intellectual property." The bankruptcy definition includes trade secrets, patents and patent applications, copyrights, and mask works.  Importantly, however, it does not include trademarks. This distinction means that trademark licensees enjoy none of Section 365(n)’s special protections and those licensees are at risk of losing their trademark rights in a bankruptcy. 

For more on these subjects, you may find these earlier posts, "Intellectual Property Licenses: What Happens In Bankruptcy?" and "Trademark Licensor In Bankruptcy: Special Risk For Licensees" of interest.

The Israeli Perspective. An article in Cooley’s Cross Border Commentary, prepared by Einat Meisel of the Israeli law firm of Gross, Kleinhendler, Hodak, Berkman and Co., discusses a Tel-Aviv District Court decision involving these issues. When an Israeli company known as Commodio Ltd. entered liquidation, two of its intellectual property licensees sought to retain rights under their license agreements with Commodio. In ruling on the effort, the Israeli court made several important holdings:

  • The licensees could continue to use the IP as long as they made required any royalty payments and complied with the terms of use in the agreements, with payments to be made to the liquidator.
  • The licensees could gain access to the underlying source code behind the object code covered by their licenses provided this did not impose substantial expense on the company in liquidation.
  • No transfer of ownership in the IP could occur due to the liquidation, as this would be contrary to Israeli bankruptcy law.
  • A right of first refusal covering certain of the intellectual property would be enforceable in the bankruptcy.

Comparison To A U.S. Bankruptcy. With a few key differences, the outcome in the Commodio case is similar to the treatment under U.S. law. Under Section 365(n)’s provisions, licensees would have the ability to retain their rights to the IP, with any royalty payments being made to the bankruptcy estate. If an agreement contained a source code license, the licensees could also access the source code under Section 365(n). However, absent a license grant to the source code, the outcome would likely be different in a U.S. bankruptcy.  Provisions purporting to transfer ownership of the IP upon a bankruptcy or liquidation would not be enforceable in a U.S. bankruptcy. Finally, the right of first refusal enforced in the Israeli case might not be enforced in a U.S. bankruptcy if the agreement were rejected but could if the license were assumed. 

Get Advice. Licensing intellectual property from a foreign corporation raises a number of issues, including what happens if the foreign licensor goes bankrupt or becomes insolvent. Potential licensees should be sure to get expert advice on the applicable foreign law, including the implications of bankruptcy, when licensing IP from a foreign company. Although licensees from Israeli companies can find some comfort in the Commodio decision, it remains important to get advice on Israeli law specific to your situation. 

The Financially Troubled Company

How Venture Capitalists View An Economic Downturn

Recent posts from two thought-leading venture capitalists give insights into how VCs approach the impact of a possible recession. The first is from Will Price, a managing director at venture capital firm Hummer Winblad. In his post, titled "Downturn – Now What?" (hat tip: Ask The VC blog), Will offers some very interesting observations, including this one:

If I take the last downturn as my guide, I can say with confidence that venture investors would be well suited to continue to invest right through the downturn – in 2002 and 2003 terrific companies were formed and funded at very reasonable valuations and with business models that reflected the demand for capital efficiency and economic viability.

The second post comes from Jason Mendelson who, together with fellow Foundry Group managing director Brad Feld, publish the Ask The VC blog. This new post, titled "What Is The Effect Of The ‘Pending’ Recession On Venture Capital Financings Of Private Companies?," examines similar issues. Jason makes a number of thoughtful comments, including:

Now how does this all affect VC financings?  Well, history would tell us that VCs will put less money into funding companies, converse cash and wait until the acquisition and public markets open up a bit.  With a lack of good exits, why would a VC want to invest in a company?  However, that’s never made much sense to me, especially if we limit investments to early-staged companies.  I’ve always thought the best time to invest in young startups is when things are choppy.  You usually can invest at lower prices, hire folks for less than you normally would, etc.  Also, I’d never expect an investment to exit in the near future (1-3 years, for sure) and therefore the company will be well positioned to exit at the end of the recession.  If you wait until the recession is over, you are already paying too much.

For anyone interested in how a recession could impact venture-backed companies, including insolvency professionals who work with the ones that fail, these new posts from two leading venture capitalists make for very informative reading.

The Financially Troubled Company

When Startups Shut Down: A Venture Capitalist Reflects On Why Early Stage Businesses Fail

Fred Wilson, a managing director at New York-based venture capital firm Union Square Ventures, has an insightful post entitled "Why Early Stage Venture Investments Fail." It’s a rare opportunity to get a venture capital investor’s perspective on the reasons startup companies go bust. Fred cites two main reasons:

1) It was a dumb idea and we realized it early on and killed the investment. I’ve only been involved in one investment in this category personally although I’ve lived through a bunch like this over the years in the partnerships I’ve been in.
2) It was a decent idea but directionally incorrect, it was hugely overfunded, the burn rate was taken to levels way beyond reason, and it became impossible to adapt the business in a financially viable manner.

He notes that it’s the second reason — a failure to adapt the business in a way that makes financial sense — that predominates. Fred highlights the danger caused by allowing companies to run with high burn rates, something my own experience teaches is a common affliction of distressed companies, particularly those in the early, developmental stages before they have substantial revenues to offset the burn.

This post followed another in which Fred discussed his overall early stage failure rate. Both make for interesting reading for anyone looking to understand why businesses fail — and how to help them succeed.

(Hat tip to Erick Schonfeld for his post on the subject at TechCrunch.)

Business Bankruptcy Issues Recent Developments The Financially Troubled Company

The Bull Rips A Hole In The Matador’s Cape: New Ninth Circuit Decision Limits Reach Of Section 502(b)(6)’s Landlord Cap

A commercial real estate lease often represents the largest single liability of many debtors. For retailers, which typically have scores or even hundreds of store leases, the liability involved is orders of magnitude larger. It’s fair to say that the management of lease obligations can be of enormous consequence to debtors, landlords, and other creditors in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.

Rejected Leases And The Capped Claim. As explained in an earlier post on how commercial real estate leases are treated in bankruptcy, one of a debtor’s options in a Chapter 11 case is to reject uneconomic or otherwise burdensome leases, terminating the debtor’s obligation to pay rent and turning the landlord’s claim for termination of the lease into a prepetition claim. Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code goes further and caps the landlord’s prepetition rejection claim at an amount equal to the greater of (1) one year’s rent or (2) fifteen percent of the remaining lease term, up to a maximum of three years’ worth of rent. The starting date for calculating the claim is the earlier of the date when the bankruptcy petition was filed or when the landlord recovered possession of, or the tenant surrendered, the premises. A landlord with six years left on a rejected lease, for example, would have its claim capped at one year’s worth of rent.

What’s Covered By The Cap? This ability to cap a landlord’s claim in bankruptcy can be a major benefit to debtor tenants. Ever since a 1995 decision by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) of the Ninth Circuit in In re McSheridan, 184 B.R. 91 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995), debtors have been successful in many cases in capping a variety of claims by landlords. In McSheridan, the BAP held that the cap applied to all damages for the lessee’s nonperformance of the lease, not just to claims based on future rent. Landlords have challenged that analysis but, at least in the Ninth Circuit, have had little success — until this week.

The Ninth Circuit’s El Toro Decision. In an eight-page opinion (available here) issued on October 1, 2007 in the In re El Toro Materials Company, Inc. Chapter 11 case,, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit took a very different view of the landlord cap under Section 502(b)(6). In the El Toro case, the debtor was a mining company that leased property from the Saddleback Community Church, paying $28,000 per month in rent. After the lease was rejected, Saddleback brought an adversary proceeding against El Toro for $23 million in damages alleging that El Toro left a million tons of wet clay "goo," mining equipment, and other materials on the property.

  • The bankruptcy court held that Saddleback’s claim, which asserted waste, nuisance, and other tort theories, would not be limited by the Section 502(b)(6) cap. 
  • Following its McSheridan precedent, the BAP reversed and held that any damages would be subject to the cap. 
  • Interestingly, two of the three judges on the BAP panel filed concurring opinions, voicing doubts about the wisdom of the McSheridan case. A copy of the BAP’s unpublished El Toro decision from July 2005 is available here.

Judge Kozinski’s Analysis. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the BAP’s decision, holding that the cap did not apply to the landlord’s tort claims. Judge Alex Kozinski authored the opinion and analyzed the key issues this way:

The structure of the cap—measured as a fraction of the remaining term—suggests that damages other than those based on a loss of future rental income are not subject to the cap. It makes sense to cap damages for lost rental income based on the amount of expected rent: Landlords may have the ability to mitigate their damages by re-leasing or selling the premises, but will suffer injury in proportion to the value of their lost rent in the meantime. In contrast, collateral damages are likely to bear only a weak correlation to the amount of rent: A tenant may cause a lot of damage to a premises leased cheaply, or cause little damage to premises underlying an expensive leasehold.

One major purpose of bankruptcy law is to allow creditors to receive an aliquot share of the estate to settle their debts. Metering these collateral damages by the amount of the rent would be inconsistent with the goal of providing compensation to each creditor in proportion with what it is owed. Landlords in future cases may have significant claims for both lost rental income and for breach of other provisions of the lease. To limit their recovery for collateral damages only to a portion of their lost rent would leave landlords in a materially worse position than other creditors. In contrast, capping rent claims but allowing uncapped claims for collateral damage to the rented premises will follow congressional intent by preventing a potentially overwhelming claim for lost rent from draining the estate, while putting landlords on equal footing with other creditors for their collateral claims.

The statutory language supports this interpretation. The cap applies to damages “resulting from” the rejection of the lease. 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(6). Saddleback’s claims for waste, nuisance and trespass do not result from the rejection of the lease—they result from the pile of dirt allegedly left on the property. Rejection of the lease may or may not have triggered Saddleback’s ability to sue for the alleged damages.But the harm to Saddleback’s property existed whether or not the lease was rejected. A simple test reveals whether the damages result from the rejection of the lease: Assuming all other conditions remain constant, would the landlord have the same claim against the tenant if the tenant were to assume the lease rather than rejecting it? Here, Saddleback would still have the same claim it brings today had El Toro accepted the lease and committed to finish its term: The pile of dirt would still be allegedly trespassing on Saddleback’s land and Saddleback still would have the same basis for its theories of nuisance, waste and breach of contract. The million-ton heap of dirt was not put there by the rejection of the lease—it was put there by the actions and inactions of El Toro in preparing to turn over the site.

(Footnotes omitted.)

McSheridan Holding Overruled. The Ninth Circuit opinion noted the two concurrences from the BAP decision questioning McSheridan and suggested that the BAP consider adopting an en banc procedure to reconsider such doubtful precedents. Given the Ninth Circuit’s holding, it will come as no surprise that the Court of Appeals also explicitly overruled McSheridan:

To the extent that McSheridan holds section 502(b)(6) to be a limit on tort claims other than those based on lost rent, rent-like payments or other damages directly arising from a tenant’s failure to complete a lease term, it is overruled.

The Ninth Circuit noted that McSheridan also holds that "damages flowing from the failure of a party that has rejected a lease to perform future routine repairs or pay utility bills are capped," but declined to address — or overrule — that holding.

Post-El Toro Ramifications.  At least in the Ninth Circuit, with McSheridan overruled landlords will work hard to characterize their damage claims as arising from tort theories or otherwise not being based on "lost rent, rent-like payments or other damages directly arising from a tenant’s failure to complete the lease term." At the negotiation stage, when the market permits landlords may demand larger security deposits and letters of credit on the view that the Section 502(b)(6) cap no longer limits every type of damage recoverable against such security. They may also structure leases to separate claims for items such as clean-up costs, hazardous waste removal, property damage, and even tenant improvement repayments from rent claims, in an attempt to bolster the argument that these claims fall outside of the cap.

Conclusion. Like a bull charging a matador, the El Toro decision has ripped a hole in the Section 502(b)(6) cape previously used to turn away cap-busting landlord claims. Time will tell just how significant the decision turns out to be, but at first blush it seems that debtors and non-landlord creditors may be the ones who end up seeing red.