Delaware Bankruptcy Insider:
Be In The Know

About This Blog


The Delaware Bankruptcy Insider is a premier blog designed to bring its readers a comprehensive analysis of the latest Delaware corporate bankruptcy news and rulings.  Brought to you by Ashby & Geddes, P.A.

Get Updates By Email

Topics

Judges and Courts

View All
View less

Recent Posts

HELPFUL LINKS

For more information


Karen B. Skomorucha Owens, Esq.
(302) 504-3725
kowens@ashbygeddes.com

Ashby & Geddes, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-1150
(302) 654-1888               

Showing posts in Section 363(f)

Lease Profit Sharing Provisions Held Per Se Unenforceable Under 11 U.S.C. § 365(f)(1)

Antone Corp. v. Haggen Holdings, LLC (In re Haggen Holdings, LLC), No. 15-1136 (GMS), 2017 WL 3730527 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017)

In this Opinion, Judge Sleet of the Delaware District Court affirmed the holding of Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court that profit sharing provisions contained in leases are per se unenforceable anti-assignment provisions under section 365(f)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.  The provision at issue on appeal entitled the landlord to fifty percent of any “net profits” of the subject lease should the debtor-tenant assign it.  In connection with its proposed sale in… Read More

Underwater Lender Could Not Be Compelled To Accept Money Satisfaction Of Its Property Interests; Sale Free And Clear Under 363(f) Denied

In re Ferris Props., Inc., No. 14-10491 (MFW), 2015 WL 4600248 (Bankr. D. Del. July 30, 2015)

On July 30, 2015, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied a debtors’ request to sell properties free and clear of liens and encumbrances pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, holding that the mortgagee, whose claim would not be paid in full from the sale proceeds, could not be compelled to accept a money satisfaction of its interests in the properties and did not consent to the sale.  A debtor may sell property free and clear of any interest in such… Read More

Claims Arising From Purchaser Wrongdoing Following Entry of Sale Order But Prior to Closing Barred and Enjoined by Section 363(f)

In re NE Opco, Inc., No. 13-11483 (CSS), 2014 WL 3884217 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 8, 2014)

In the chapter 11 proceedings of NE Opco, Inc. and its affiliated debtors (the “Debtors”), the Honorable Christopher J. Sontchi was presented with a unique set of circumstances leading to the following question—whether pre-closing claims against a purchaser, related to the sale and arising from conduct occurring after the entry of a sale order, should be barred and enjoined by the section 363(f) finding in the sale order.  The Court held that they should.

The claimant, Mr. Torres (“Torres”), had… Read More