In re Buffets Holdings, Inc., No. 08-10141 (Bankr. D. Del. May 16, 2008) (Judge Mary F. Walrath)
The Bankruptcy Court held that Master Leases were integrated and could not be separately assumed and assigned or rejected based on the terms of the Master Leases and the parties’ course of conduct.
Continue Reading...In re FLYi, Inc., 377 B.R. 140 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007) (Judge Mary F. Walrath)
The debtor rejected a lease of non-residential real property, and the landlord filed its rejection damages claim. Thereafter, the landlord sold the premises. The trust for the debtor’s estate objected to the claim. The Court sustained the objection in part, finding that when the landlord sold the premises, it exercised full dominion, eliminating any claim it had against the debtor for rent arising after the sale of the premises.
Continue Reading...In re Fleming Cos., Inc., Case No. 03-10945 (MFW), 2006 WL 2320974 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 9, 2006) (Judge Mary F. Walrath)
Where the Debtor assumed and assigned a lease of non-residential real property to a third-party, and the property was in deplorable condition at the time of assumption, under Wisconsin law, the landlord could recover the amount necessary to restore the property to its particular purpose as a grocery store as “cure” pursuant to sections 365 and 503(b).
Continue Reading...In re LG Philips Displays USA, Inc., Case No 06-10245 (BLS), 2006 WL 1748671 (Bankr. D. Del. June 21, 2006) (Judge Brendan L. Shannon)
Debtor moved to reject a settlement agreement under which debtor conveyed option to purchase real estate, as the Debtor wished to purchase the property itself. The party holding the purchase option objected to the motion. The Court denied the motion, holding that the settlement agreement was not an executory contract that could be rejected under the Bankruptcy Code.
Continue Reading...In re Exide Techs., 340 B.R. 222 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006 (Judge Kevin J. Carey)
The debtor sought to reject a trademark agreement and the other party to the agreement argued that the agreement was not executory and, if the agreement was executory, the debtor did not exercise proper business judgment in rejecting the agreement. The Court held that the agreement was executory and approved the debtor’s decision to reject the agreement holding that the debtor exercised proper business judgment.
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.
For more information concerning any of these cases, contact Carl N. ("Chuck") Kunz III at ckunz@morrisjames.com or 302.888.6811
