Profit Sharing Ruled an Unenforceable Anti-Assignment Restriction
A fundamental benefit of Chapter 11 is a debtor's ability to assume and assign executory contracts and unexpired leases over the objection of a nondebtor counterparty, even when the contract contains otherwise valid anti-assignment provisions. Moreover, as demonstrated in a recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, this statutory tool can be used despite its negative impact upon the underlying economics of the original contract, as in Antone v. Haggen Holdings (In re Haggen Holdings), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139272 (D. Del. Aug. 30).
September 14, 2017 at 05:20 PM
5 minute read
A fundamental benefit of Chapter 11 is a debtor's ability to assume and assign executory contracts and unexpired leases over the objection of a nondebtor counterparty, even when the contract contains otherwise valid anti-assignment provisions. Moreover, as demonstrated in a recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, this statutory tool can be used despite its negative impact upon the underlying economics of the original contract, as in Antone v. Haggen Holdings (In re Haggen Holdings), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139272 (D. Del. Aug. 30). Specifically, in Haggen, the district court effectively negated a profit sharing obligation contained within a commercial real estate lease by finding it to be an unenforceable restriction on assignment and unenforceable as a matter of law.
The debtors operated 164 grocery stores prior to filing Chapter 11 in September 2015. After filing, a sale process for certain of the stores was commenced, which included the proposed assumption and assignment of the underlying store leases. Antone Corp. was the lessor at one of the affected stores and objected to the assignment of its commercial property lease. The lease contained a profit sharing provision, which gave the landlord 50 percent of any net profits made by the debtors from the assignment of the lease. Antone objected because the proposed sale did not require the debtors to honor its profit sharing obligation. The landlord argued that any assumption and assignment of the lease must be conditioned upon full compliance with its terms, including payment of half the net profits. In support of its argument, Antone submitted declarations demonstrating that the profit sharing agreement was a bargained for right provided by the debtors as consideration for the landlord accepting below-market rent, and therefore must be enforced.
In response, the debtors argued that profit sharing was nothing more than an unenforceable anti-assignment provision pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 365(f). Section 365(f) prevents the enforcement of anti-alienation and other anti-assignment clauses contained in leases and executory contracts that would prevent a debtor from realizing the full value of its assets to the detriment of the creditor body. The Bankruptcy Court agreed with the debtors and approved the sale, authorized assumption and assignment of the lease and prohibited enforcement of the profit sharing provision.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'In Re King': One Is Definitely the Loneliest Number When Filing an Involuntary Petition
7 minute readDelaying Rent Payment by Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing Facilities in Chapter 11
7 minute readDebtor-Owner Allowed to Modify Mortgage in Bankruptcy Even if Debtor Is Not Obligor Under the Mortgage Loan
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250