Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code grants debtors the ability to assume or reject any executory contract or unexpired lease. Debtors must assume or reject a lease in its entirety and are not free under Section 365 to assume only favorable provisions of a lease. See, In re Village Rathskeller, Inc., 147 B.R. 665, 671 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992). Courts, however, have consistently held that they will not find a multi-property master lease to be a unitary lease merely because such properties are demised in a single document. See, e.g., In re Buffets Holdings, 387 B.R. 115, 120 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008).
In sale-leaseback transactions involving a portfolio of properties, landlords often require that properties be grouped in master leases rather than several individual leases — despite the resulting loss of flexibility for both landlord and tenant — in order to protect against the risk that the tenant can "cherry pick" by rejecting leases for less desirable properties in a bankruptcy.
Debtors in bankruptcy cases frequently challenge the master lease structure and the premise that a master lease agreement is a single, unitary contract that must be assumed or rejected in its entirety. Whether a master lease agreement is unitary or severable is a question of state law. That said, the Bankruptcy Code provides some relevant guardrails, as courts must decline to treat a master lease as a unitary contract if there is no reason for the leases to be integrated beyond the landlord's desire to maximize their recovery in bankruptcy. See, Buffets Holdings, 387 B.R., at 124.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
We’re counting down to the new year with a recap of the five most influential patent decisions from 2024. Spanning damages, design patents, infringement loopholes, issue preclusion, and prior art disqualification, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had an active year issuing cases with a direct impact on innovation.
Questions of Fact About Compliance With Mortgage Contingency ClauseMortgagee Who Purchased At Foreclosure Sale Failed to Establish Bona Fide Purchaser StatusSupreme Court Was Premature In Holding That Option Violated Rule Against Perpetuities
Developer’s Taking Claims Survive Motion to DismissDEC Incorrectly Granted Permit to Expand Nonconforming Mining UseMemorandum of Understanding Not Binding on Subsequent Town Board