Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Post-Petition Enforcement
Generally speaking, after a bankruptcy filing, executory contracts are not enforceable against a debtor that has not yet assumed the contract. N.L.R.B. v. Bildisco and Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 531 (1984). However, the reverse is not true. During the pre-assumption period, the non-debtor party to the contract is presumed to be obligated to perform in accordance with a contract. Howard C. Buschman III, Benefits and Burdens: Post-Petition Performance of Unassumed Executory Contracts, 5 Bankr. Dev. J., 341, 346, 359 (1988); Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan (In re Univ. Med. Ctr.), 973 F.2d 1065, 1075 (3d Cir. 1992); McLean Indus., Inc. v. Med. Lab. Automation, Inc. (In re McLean Indus., Inc.), 96 B.R. 440, 449 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989). Of course, a debtor who elects to receive the benefits of a contract while deciding whether to assume or reject the contract is expected to pay for the value of the goods and services received in accordance with the contract. As the Supreme Court noted in Bildisco, 465 U.S. at 531, 'If the debtor-in-possession elects to continue to receive benefits from the other party to an executory contract pending a decision to reject or assume the contract, the debtor-in-possession is obligated to pay for the reasonable value of those services ' ' See also Schokbeton Indus., Inc. v. Schokbeton Prods. Corp. (In re Schokbeton Indus., Inc.), 466 F.2d 171, 175 (5th Cir. 1972).
There are some limitations, however, on the ability of the debtor in possession to obtain the benefit of a contract after bankruptcy but prior to assumption. Section 365(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, for example, excuses a landlord from providing services and supplies incidental to the lease when there has been a nonmonetary default under the lease, unless the landlord is compensated for the services or supplies. 11 U.S.C. ' 365(b)(4). With respect to nonresidential realty leases, the debtor in possession must pay the full rent as it accrues post-petition, prior to assumption, even if the premises are not used or occupied. 11 U.S.C. ' 365(d)(3); Cukierman v. Uecker (In re Cukierman), 265 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2001) ('We have held that claims arising under ' 365(d)(3) are entitled to administrative priority even when they may exceed the reasonable value of the debtor's actual use of the property'); In re Curry Printers, Inc., 135 B.R. 564 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1991) (requiring lease payments regardless of actual usage).
Protecting the Seller
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?