Insight

It's the Leased You Can Do - An Oversight of §502(b)(6)

It's the Leased You Can Do - An Oversight of §502(b)(6)

JB

John B. Butler III

November 17, 2021 03:46 PM

t’s the Leased You Can Do—An Overview of §502(b)(6) and Lease Claims

The Bencher—September/October 2021 (online only)

By John B Butler III

The headlines scream it! “Retail Tenants Leverage Pandemic Stress for Rent Cuts” (Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2021). “Malls’ Decline Pushes Landlords CBL, PREIT to Bankruptcy” (Wall Street Journal, November 2, 2020).

Debtors, as lessees, rejecting leases is now an everyday occurrence, and the impact on the lessors is varied. If an accommodation is not reached, then rejection of the lease may well occur, leaving the lessor with a claim in the debtor’s bankruptcy case. How much is the claim? How is it calculated? How do state law and bankruptcy interact?
Bankruptcy Code Section 502(b)(6) provides a statutory cap for allowed claims resulting from “damages resulting from the termination of a lease of real property” in which the debtor is the lessee.

The purpose of the lessor’s cap is “to compensate the landlord for his loss while not permitting a claim so large…as to prevent other general unsecured creditors from recovering a dividend from the estate.” H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, at 353-54 (1977). While an admirable idea, the calculation of the claim may revive nightmares of high school algebra class.

In this article, I will not address issues such as damages for post-petition rejection of an assumed lease, administrative expense claims for rent, stub rent, triple net leases, and other exhilarating topics. Instead, I will focus on the fundamentals of applying §502(b)(6) and a hopefully easily

understood sample calculation.

First, we must define the phrase “claim…for damages resulting from the termination of a lease.” There is a split of authority about what this phrase means and what damages incurred by the lessor are included in the capped calculation. Some courts interpret this term broadly, holding a debtor’s rejection of a lease under §365(a) results in a breach of all covenants in the lease. Therefore, all damage claims by the lessor including, for example, covenants requiring the debtor to maintain and repair the premises are subject to the cap of §502(b)(6). In re Foamex Int'l, Inc., 368 B.R. 383 (Bankr. D.Del. 2007); In re Mr. Gatti’s, Inc., 162 B.R. 1004 (Bankr. W.D.Tex. 1994).

The narrower interpretation applies §502(b)(6) “to solely those damages arising as a consequence of the lease being terminated” but does not apply to non-rejection tort damages such as waste, destruction, or removal of leasehold property.

The initial calculation in the preamble to §502(b)(6) is the amount of “the claim of a lessor for damages resulting from the termination of a lease of real property.” This requires calculating the uncapped damages recoverable under applicable non-bankruptcy law resulting from termination of the lease by the debtor. The amount of the claim under §502(b)(6) must then be calculated based on the earlier of the dates set forth in §502(b)(6)(A)(I) and (ii). A comparison is then made to the greater of the amount of the rent for one year or 15% (not to exceed three years) of the remaining term of such lease plus any unpaid rent due under such lease, without acceleration. In re Shane Co., 464 B.R. 32, 40 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2012); In re Iron–Oak Supply Corp., 169 B.R. 414, 419 n. 8 (Bankr. E.D. Cal.1994); 2 Norton Bankr. L. & Prac. 3d § 46:49 (“[A] $5,000 per month lease is rejected five years prior to the end of the lease term. One-year’s rent would be $60,000 (12 months times $5,000).…Fifteen percent of the remaining term would be $45,000 (five years times $60,000 per year times 15%), a sum which does not exceed three years’ rent ($180,000). Thus, the landlord’s claim would be the greater of the two, or $60,000. If the remaining term of the lease was 10 years, the landlord’s claim would be 15% of $600,000 (10 years times $60,000 per year), or $90,000.”).

The court compares those capped amounts in §502(b)(6)(A) and (B) to one another and compares the greater of these two figures to the total non-capped damages under applicable non-bankruptcy law. If non-capped damages are less than the greater of the amounts in §502(b)(6)(A) and (B), then the lessor is entitled to the non-capped damages. If total non-capped damages are greater than the greater of the amounts set by §502(b)(6)(A) and (B) (which is usually the case), the cap applies, and the lessor is only entitled to the greater of the capped amounts in §502(b)(6)(A) and (B). Don’t despair; the chart below should bring clarity, so read on.

To start the calculations, the date of the termination of the lease must be determined. The rejection of an unassumed lease constitutes a breach immediately before the date of the bankruptcy petition, even if the rejection occurs after the date of the bankruptcy petition. Therefore, the lessor’s has a pre-petition claim for damages resulting from the breach of the lease. §365(g)(1); §502(g)(1). The date from which the calculation begins is the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition unless there is an earlier surrender or repossession of the property. Most courts look to state law to determine whether the leased property has been surrendered or repossessed.

The term “15 percent, not to exceed three years, of the remaining term of such lease ...” has been debated by courts. Some courts hold the 15% refers to the time left on the lease. Other courts hold the 15% refers to the amount left owing under the lease. If the rent changes over time, some courts following the time method hold “it is necessary to calculate the rent that would accrue in the absence of lease termination to the first 15% of the remaining term, here 14.21 months. Any escalators that would take effect during those 14.21 months are to be honored.” In other words, if the lease obligation increases only after 15% of the remaining lease term has passed, the calculation is based on the lower amount.

Any security deposit, even a letter of credit, should be applied to reduce the capped amount.

Any credit from the lessor’s mitigation of damages by reletting the premises or other means is applied to the non-cap termination damages to be calculated for comparison purposes with the cap calculations of §502(b)(6)(A) and (B) and does not reduce the capped amounts in §502(b)(6)(A) and (B) that are already limited by statute.

Attorney’s fees resulting from termination of the lease may be included in the non-cap termination damages to be calculated for comparison purposes with the cap calculations of §502(b)(6)(A) and (B). Attorney’s fees resulting from termination of the lease are included in the amounts to be capped by §502(b)(6)(A) and (B) and are not added to the capped amounts after calculation to increase the lessor’s claim. Attorney’s fees resulting from events not related to termination of the lease are not limited by §502(b)(6), as those damages are not within the scope of §502(b)(6).

With respect to future rent or some types of deferred rent, § 502(b)(6)(B) permits a lessor to claim, without limitation, the entire amount of rent already due and owing under the lease as of the earlier of the bankruptcy petition date, or the date the lessor repossessed, or the tenant surrendered, the property. A claim for future rent under the lease is capped by §502(b)(6)(A) and may not be included beyond the statutory limit.

Surely that is enough groundwork. Now for our hypothetical lease and calculation of damages. Our example is a 120-month lease with rent due on the first of the month at $3,000 per month with a total rent of $360,000 and a security deposit of $6,000. The debtor paid for 12 months but is past due for the 13th month and files bankruptcy prior to the rent payment due for the 14th month on April 1, 2021. The debtor immediately moves to reject the lease and surrenders possession on March 31, 2021. Below are the calculations under §502(b)(6) for this simple example.

1. All damages incurred by lessor resulting from termination of lease, excluding damages not related to termination of the lease. 108 mos. x $3,0000$324,000.00 2. Date of petition March 1, 2021 3. Date lessor repossessed property or tenant surrendered property (i.e., pre-petition repossession or surrender date). March 31, 2021 4. Earlier of dates in 2 & 3 or petition date unless there was a pre-petition repossession or surrender date. March 1, 2021 5. Amount equal to one year of rent (without acceleration) from date listed in 4. $36,000.00 6. Amount equal to 15% of rent not to exceed three years (without acceleration) from date listed in 4. Time method: 108 mos. x .15 = 16.20 x $3,000 = $48,600. Amount method 108 mos. x $3,000 =$324,000 x .15 = $48,600 $48,600.00 7. Greater of 5 or 6 $48,600.00 8. Amount of unpaid rent (without acceleration) from date listed in 4. Excludes future rent. $3,000.00 9. Deductions such as security deposit, etc. $6,000.00 Total of claim under §502(b)(6) which is lesser of 1 or total of 7+8-9 $45,600.00

Well, there you are—not as painful as high school algebra and hopefully more helpful. If only real-life leases and the calculations were this easy, but at least this may help some of us understand the basics.

John B. Butler III, Esquire, is the managing partner in the law firm of John B. Butler III, P.A. in Columbia, South Carolina. He is a member of the J. Bratton Davis Bankruptcy American Inn of Court.

© 2021 John B. Butler III, Esquire. This article is published online as part of the September/October 2021 issue of The Bencher, a bi-monthly publication of the American Inns of Court. This article, in full or in part, may not be copied, reprinted, distributed, or stored electronically in any form without the written consent of the American Inns of Court.

Related Articles

A Practical Guide for Chapter 7 Practitioners


by Peter W. Hansen

Peter Hansen confronts and debunks common misconceptions surrounding debt repayment, bankruptcy and consolidation propagated by politicians and companies.

Large cracked piggy bank with person putting Band-aids on cracks

The Next Chapter


by Patrick M. Shelby and Patrick M. Shelby

Among its uncountable other disruptions, the pandemic upended U.S. bankruptcy procedures. Congressional relief, legislative changes, amended legal provisions: What lies ahead for those looking to file?

COVID-19's Impacts on Bankruptcy Procedures

Oklahoma Finds Tort-Reform Statute Unconstitutional


by T. Luke Abel

The Beason family had a strong case, and the jury responded by awarding them a sizable payout. But, the court invoked a tort-reform statute that capped the family's winnings, much to the surprise of the jury.

Oklahoma Tort-Reform Unconstitutional Damages

How PLMJ's Unique Structure Shapes Its Insolvency Practice


by Best Lawyers

A leading attorney with the 2019 "Law Firm of the Year" winner for Insolvency and Reorganization Law in Portugal speaks to Best Lawyers CEO Phillip Greer.

PLMJ "Law Firm of the Year" Interview

The 5 W’s of Bankruptcy Communications


by Eden Gillott

You might be an expert on bankruptcy, but communicating its practical realities to clients can get complicated.

The Who, What, and Why of Bankruptcy

An Interview With Eberhard Braun of Schultze & Braun


by Best Lawyers

The 2019 "Law Firm of the Year" winning firm was recognized in Germany for Restructuring and Insolvency Law.

Eberhard Braun Interview

It Was a Very Bad Year for Retail


by Michelle V. Rafter

While overall business bankruptcies dropped 5.4 percent through Q3, in excess of 300 stores filed for Chapter 7 or 11 in the same period, including big names like Toys “R” Us, Gymboree, and Payless ShoeSource.

Bad Year for Retail

Trending Articles

2025 Best Lawyers Awards Announced: Honoring Outstanding Legal Professionals Across the U.S.


by Jennifer Verta

Introducing the 31st edition of The Best Lawyers in America and the fifth edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America.

Digital map of the United States illuminated by numerous bright lights.

Unveiling the 2025 Best Lawyers Awards Canada: Celebrating Legal Excellence


by Jennifer Verta

Presenting the 19th edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada and the 4th edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Canada.

Digital map of Canadathis on illuminated by numerous bright lights

Discover The Best Lawyers in Spain 2025 Edition


by Jennifer Verta

Highlighting Spain’s leading legal professionals and rising talents.

Flags of Spain, representing Best Lawyers country

Unveiling the 2025 Best Lawyers Editions in Brazil, Mexico, Portugal and South Africa


by Jennifer Verta

Best Lawyers celebrates the finest in law, reaffirming its commitment to the global legal community.

Flags of Brazil, Mexico, Portugal and South Africa, representing Best Lawyers countries

Presenting the 2025 Best Lawyers Editions in Chile, Colombia, Peru and Puerto Rico


by Jennifer Verta

Celebrating top legal professionals in South America and the Caribbean.

Flags of Puerto Rico, Chile, Colombia, and Peru, representing countries featured in the Best Lawyers

Prop 36 California 2024: California’s Path to Stricter Sentencing and Criminal Justice Reform


by Jennifer Verta

Explore how Prop 36 could shape California's sentencing laws and justice reform.

Illustrated Hands Breaking Chains Against a Bright Red Background

Tampa Appeals Court ‘Sends Clear Message,” Ensuring School Tax Referendum Stays on Ballot


by Gregory Sirico

Hillsborough County's tax referendum is back on the 2024 ballot, promising $177 million for schools and empowering residents to decide the future of education.

Graduation cap in air surrounded by pencils and money

Find the Best Lawyers for Your Needs


by Jennifer Verta

Discover how Best Lawyers simplifies the attorney search process.

A focused woman with dark hair wearing a green top and beige blazer, working on a tablet in a dimly

Paramount Hit With NY Class Action Lawsuit Over Mass Layoffs


by Gregory Sirico

Paramount Global faces a class action lawsuit for allegedly violating New York's WARN Act after laying off 300+ employees without proper notice in September.

Animated man in suit being erased with Paramount logo in background

The Human Cost


by Justin Smulison

2 new EU laws aim to reshape global business by enforcing ethical supply chains, focusing on human rights and sustainability

Worker wearing hat stands in field carrying equipment

Introduction to Demand Generation for Law Firms


by Jennifer Verta

Learn the essentials of demand gen for law firms and how these strategies can drive client acquisition, retention, and long-term success.

Illustration of a hand holding a magnet, attracting icons representing individuals towards a central

Social Media for Law Firms: The Essential Beginner’s Guide to Digital Success


by Jennifer Verta

Maximize your law firm’s online impact with social media.

3D pixelated thumbs-up icon in red and orange on a blue and purple background.

ERISA Reaches Its Turning Point


by Bryan Driscoll

ERISA litigation and the laws surrounding are rapidly changing, with companies fundamentally rewriting their business practices.

Beach chair and hat in front of large magnify glass

How Client Testimonials Fuel Client Acquisition for Law Firms


by Nancy Lippincott

Learn how client testimonials boost client acquisition for law firms. Enhance credibility, engage clients and stand out in a competitive legal market.

Woman holding blurb of online reviews

Best Lawyers Expands With New Artificial Intelligence Practice Area


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers introduces Artificial Intelligence Law to recognize attorneys leading the way in AI-related legal issues and innovation.

AI network expanding in front of bookshelf

Critical Period


by Maryne Gouhier and Armelle Royer

How the green-energy raw materials chase is rewriting geopolitics

Overhead shot of mineral extraction plant