Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Confusion About Section 365(b)(2)(D)
It is generally understood that bankruptcy law requires debtors to cure all contractual defaults before assuming any executory contract because debtors would receive a windfall without such requirement: They could assume (and compel performance on) contracts that they had breached without paying any resulting damages claim. If such a result were permitted under the Code, failing companies would have even less incentive to continue performing on contracts pre-petition because they could presumably seek to assume those contracts in bankruptcy without penalty. For this reason, Bankruptcy Code ' 365(b)(1) expressly provides that a debtor may only assume an executory contract if the debtor first:
- cures, or provides adequate assurance that it will promptly cure any defaults under the contract;
- compensates, or provides adequate assurance that it will promptly compensate, a party for any actual pecuniary loss resulting from such default; and
- provides adequate assurance of future performance under the contract. 11 U.S.C. ' (b)(1).
Despite this well-understood and widely applied Code provision, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 modified Section 365 in such a way as to potentially eliminate the long-standing obligation to cure certain defaults in connection with the assumption of executory contracts. Specifically, Section 365(b)(2)(D) now provides that:
The requirements of Section 365(b)(1) do not apply to a default that is a breach of a provision relating to the satisfaction of any penalty rate or provision relating to a default arising from any failure by the debtor to perform nonmonetary obligations under the executory contract or unexpired lease relating to a default arising from any failure by the debtor to perform nonmonetary obligations under the executory contract or unexpired lease. 11 U.S.C. ' 365(b)(2)(D) (emphasis added).
Courts disagree as to the interpretation of this provision. Some read it in the conjunctive, as excusing the debtor's obligation to cure any penalty rate or penalty provision arising from a nonmonetary default. Others read it in the disjunctive, as excusing the debtor's obligation to cure either penalty rates or contractual provisions relating to nonmonetary defaults. If this latter interpretation is adopted, then Section 365(b)(2)(D) carves out a significant (and, from the debtor's perspective, extremely favorable) exception to Section 365's requirements for contract assumption — that is, it alleviates the debtor's burden of curing nonmonetary defaults when, for example, the time for performance under the contract has passed.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?