Friday, January 30, 2009

Preparing for a Tenant's Opportunities from the Potentially Bankrupt Landlord

The Coming Challenge: Major commercial landlords may be on the brink of bankruptcy due to the current financial environment and the credit crunch. See, for example, the continuing news coverage of the struggles of General Growth Properties, such as General Growth Properties Seeks Further Loan Extension (Reuters).

What A Tenant Should Do: Prepare Now!

Tenants should prepare in advance of landlord bankruptcies to protect themselves and their locations, with the bankruptcies in fact presenting opportunities to compel landlords to make recompense for past overcharges and other breaches.


The United States is likely to experience bankruptcies of major commercial landlords in the coming year. Although most financially troubled landlords have managed to cope with their debt burdens sufficiently to avoid bankruptcy filings as of year-end 2008, the tight credit market and declining real estate values strongly suggest that 2009 will see bankruptcy filings by commercial landlords.

Because a landlord bankruptcy can dramatically impact a retail tenant, tenants should take steps to protect themselves in advance of any bankruptcy filing by a landlord. Most importantly, a tenant can prepare so that the bankrupt landlord will be required as part of the bankruptcy proceeding to correct breaches of a lease—such as overcharges or violations of the landlord’s covenants about the quality of the shopping center.

What should a retail tenant do to protect itself in the event of a landlord bankruptcy and to see that past landlord breaches are addressed?

First, a retail tenant should understand the landlord’s and the tenant’s rights and obligations under bankruptcy law in the event of a landlord’s bankruptcy.

Second, before a landlord files for bankruptcy protection, a retail tenant should assess its critical leases to document existing breaches that may be affected by a landlord bankruptcy. The protections that will be offered by a bankruptcy court to the tenant of a bankrupt landlord will vary depending on how thoroughly a tenant can demonstrate an existing breach of the lease.

Third, a retail tenant should prepare for how little time it will have to respond to actions in a landlord bankruptcy. A retail tenant should take steps to ensure it gets prompt notice of events in a landlord’s bankruptcy proceeding.

1. A Tenant Should Understand How Bankruptcy Law Will Affect the Rights of Landlords and Tenants in a Landlord Bankruptcy.


It is important for a tenant to a lease to understand how bankruptcy law will affect its rights and obligations in the event of a landlord bankruptcy. When a bankruptcy is commenced by a landlord, each of its unexpired leases is subject to “assumption” or “rejection” under Bankruptcy Code § 365.

The business dynamic for bankrupt landlords makes it unlikely that a landlord will seek to reject its existing retail leases. First, in today’s economic climate, a landlord likely will want to keep an existing lease and keep the tenant on the premises and paying rent. After all, leases entered before the downturn likely provide for rents that would be above market today. Second, the law provides that a landlord cannot use rejection to evict tenants from properties and establish a more profitable lease. However, rejection does generally terminate the landlord’s duties to perform under the contract, such as the obligation to pay for tenant improvements or to maintain the shopping center.

Thus, rejection is most likely to occur where the bankrupt landlord has determined that it cannot operate, or sell, a shopping center at a profit. In such a situation, it may seek to “sell” the shopping center to its secured lender for nothing more than a release of liability. It may also abandon the center and allow the secured lender to foreclose. In either circumstance, the lender will reject the lease so that it is not required to perform its obligations under the lease. In these circumstances, the “subordination, non-disturbance, and attornment” or “SNDA” agreements between a tenant and its landlord and the landlord’s lenders will control the situation. To prepare for these circumstances, a tenant should make sure it has easy access to its SNDA agreements and related provisions of its leases—and that the tenant has complied with any formal requirements of those agreements or provisions.

In the declining real estate market, it is more likely that a landlord seeking to reorganize itself under the Bankruptcy Code’s Chapter 11 will choose to assume leases that were entered before the recent economic downturn. The ability to control profitable leases will be central to the landlord’s attempt to re-create its business through the bankruptcy so that it will be successful going forward.

When a lease is being assumed, a retail tenant has a unique opportunity to force a landlord to come into compliance with a lease and even to obtain payment for overcharges and other remedies. Specifically, before the bankruptcy court will approve a landlord’s assumption of a lease, the bankrupt landlord is required to bring itself into compliance with the terms of the lease. The bankrupt landlord’s obligations for assumption fall into three groups.

  • First, it must “cure” existing defaults—for example, pay back overcharges that constitute a default of the landlord’s obligations, or clean up a shopping center that has fallen out of “first class condition.”

  • Second, it must “compensate” for pecuniary losses from the defaults.

  • Third, it must demonstrate “adequate assurance of future performance”—that there won’t be future defaults under the lease. Thus, to keep the lease, the landlord will have to cure and compensate for all overcharges or damages incurred by the tenant. The landlord will be required to do so in the full amount shown by the tenant—and not at the “cents on the dollar” that are usually paid to those who were owed money prior to the bankruptcy filing.

In addition, for assumption, a tenant must pay all past due rent to keep the lease. In addition, a tenant is required to cure any other breaches that the tenant may have caused.

2. Before a Landlord Files For Bankruptcy Protection, A Tenant Should Identify Landlord Breaches to Ensure They Will Be Remedied.

Before a landlord files for bankruptcy protection, a retail tenant should analyze its leases, document the landlord’s overcharges and broken promises, and develop an accounting of the losses that the tenant has incurred as a result. A tenant that is prepared to present a detailed analysis of the breaches will be in a position to request that the bankruptcy court require the breaches be remedied prior to assumption of the lease in bankruptcy. A tenant who instead is prepared only to present general allegations of the landlord’s lease noncompliance will run the risk that the bankruptcy court will allow an assumption based on nothing more than generalized promises of cure from the landlord.
The more specific a tenant can be about existing defaults, the more likely it will be able to obtain protection from the bankruptcy court. Thus, the tenant should aim to present, in advance of the potential bankruptcy, a clear listing of any existing breaches to the potentially bankrupt landlord. In sum, the tenant should:

a. Examine the language of the leases;

b. Marshal facts that support the tenant’s position on the meaning of the lease provisions;

c. Develop facts demonstrating what the Bankruptcy Code calls the “pecuniary losses” arising from the landlord’s failure to keep its promises.

Some obvious “pecuniary losses” that could be asserted by a tenant would be overcharges for rent assessments pursuant to the lease, such as for CAM charges or the tenant’s share of taxes. But pecuniary losses should also be asserted by a tenant when a landlord’s failure to comply with covenants of the lease has resulted in demonstrable damage to the tenant. Examples would be declines in revenues due to the landlord’s failure to comply with requirements for shopping center occupancy rate, tenant mix, or “first-class condition.” Bankruptcy law expressly provides for compensation for such losses before assumption will be permitted.

If a tenant is prepared with this information, a landlord’s bankruptcy will force the landlord to respond to claims of breach. The bankrupt landlord will need bankruptcy court approval to assume the lease. Faced with a prepared tenant’s documented assertion of existing breaches, the landlord will need to address the breaches to get the assumption it needs. It will be required to do so either by agreement with the tenant or by demonstrating to the court’s satisfaction that cure, compensation, and adequate assurance are being provided. The conventional foot-dragging of landlords in responding to such claims of tenants is impossible if they wish to retain the lease and to make the necessary progress toward reorganization.

In contrast, if the tenant is unprepared to assert the specific breaches and the resulting damages, and instead simply tells the court that “the landlord is in breach,” the result likely will be less favorable to the tenant. The bankruptcy court will be far more likely to accept general assurances from the bankrupt landlord that the unspecific breaches will be addressed in the future. A demand presented to the landlord prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy, before the “automatic stay” of bankruptcy takes effect, will make presenting the issue to the bankruptcy court more effective.

3. A Tenant Should Be Prepared to Act Quickly When a Landlord Files For Bankruptcy.

Once a landlord files for bankruptcy, the tenant should immediately take steps to ensure that it will obtain prompt notice of the landlord’s actions in the bankruptcy. The common perception is that bankruptcies are very slow moving, primarily because major Chapter 11 reorganizations may take years to complete. But actions regarding unexpired leases can be much faster because they need not wait for the development of a formal plan for reorganization.

In a landlord’s bankruptcy, a landlord might move for the assumption of key leases in the very early days of the bankruptcy. Major decisions are made in bankruptcy court based on motions that can be heard on ten days’ notice—or less, if the matter is deemed urgent. Absent a request from the tenant, notice of the motions can be provided by first-class mail.

A prepared tenant will see that it is included on the electronic notice lists in the bankruptcy to ensure that it receives immediate notice of developments in the bankruptcy. This will include motions to assume leases. But it will also include other landlord actions that might affect the tenant, such as rejections or motions to sell the subject property to a new landlord. For example, one federal court of appeals recently allowed the sale of a property “free and clear” of existing leases. See Precision Industries, Inc. v. Qualitech Steel SBQ, LLC (In re Qualitech Steel Corp.), 327 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2003). The American Bar Association was concerned enough about the decision to write to congressional leaders urging an amendment to the Bankruptcy Code. See November 15, 2007, ABA Letter. While the Bankruptcy Code has a number of protections for a tenant to avoid losing its lease in such a way, a failure to object to such a proposed sale is deemed by some courts to be “consent” sufficient to allow the sale. Timely notice of such a move by a landlord will be essential to avoiding a bad result.

Further, if the lease analysis has not been completed prior to bankruptcy, it should be completed immediately upon receiving notice of a landlord’s bankruptcy filing. Because bankruptcy creates an automatic stay of pending actions involving a bankrupt landlord, once a landlord has filed for bankruptcy protection, any demands or documentations of breach should only be presented through counsel to avoid possible sanctions.

Conclusion: Tenants Should Prepare Now

While it requires a determined effort for a retail tenant to prepare for a potential landlord bankruptcy filing, such an effort will pay off when the prepared tenant successfully minimizes the substantial risks posed by a bankrupt landlord. Under some circumstances, a prepared tenant may in fact turn those risks into remedies for the landlord’s previous breaches.


Labels:


Click here to read more.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

New California Plywood/Particle Board Rule Impacts Retailers

Furniture Banned to Curb Formaldehyde Emissions

The Summary: Starting in 2009, retailers in California face unannounced visits by inspectors from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) looking for banned and unlabeled merchandise made from composite wood. Retailers, fabricators, and manufacturers of new furniture (and other goods) made from certain composite wood products are prohibited from selling such goods in the state, unless they comply with a new CARB rule limiting formaldehyde emissions.

Retailers must comply with recordkeeping requirements immediately. Retailers have 18 months (to June 30, 2010) to sell through existing inventories of non-CARB-compliant goods. Under the new rule, unlabeled, noncompliant goods cannot be sold in California beginning on July 1, 2010.

According to CARB’s January 2009 Advisory, “Retailers do not have any additional labeling requirements under the ATCM. Existing labels should not be removed from a composite wood product or finished good.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/outreach/labelingadv.pdf
However, the Advisory goes on to clarify that retailers may replace an original label with a label listing their own company name, provided "all of the other original required label information is retained on the new label."

Background on the Regulation

CARB approved a new Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products in April, 2007. The rule applies to panel manufacturers, distributors, importers, fabricators and retailers of certain composite wood panels, and finished goods containing those products, that are sold or supplied in California. The products subject to the rule are hardwood plywood, particle board, and medium density fiberboard. The text of the rule is available at 17 California Code of Regulation, sections 93120 – 93120.12 or here:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf

(Formaldehyde is used in the production of wood binding adhesives and resins. It has been classified as a cancer-causing agent in humans. In 1992, formaldehyde was designated a toxic air contaminant with no safe level of exposure.)

The rule establishes two phases for reducing formaldehyde emissions. Phase 1 takes effect on January 1, 2009. Phase 2, with more stringent emission levels, begins in January 2010. CARB has estimated the cost to the affected industries of implementing the rule at $19 million for Phase 1, and $127 million for Phase 2. Industry groups have countered that these estimates are too low. The rule has been estimated to increase the per-panel retail price of composite wood products by $3.00 to $6.00 over current prices.

Retailers should know that CARB inspectors policing stores for compliance with the new rule will look for labeling on finished goods, such as tables, cabinets, bookcases and shelving, countertops, flooring, and moldings. Labels must show that any components that are hardwood plywood, particle board, or medium density fiber board have been certified by qualified third parties as compliant with the emissions standards. Labels may also be affixed to boxes, packaging, or other goods containers. The labels should be supplied by the manufacturer or fabricator, unless a retailer has made alternative arrangements for having its own labels.

Recordkeeping Requirements for Retailers

Retailers can be required to show records indicating the source of their stock, indicating the name of the manufacturer and the date of manufacture. Records must be maintained for a minimum of two years, in both hard copy and electronic form. Retailers are not, however, required to conduct product testing. Manufacturers of composite wood panels, and manufacturers of furniture and other products using composite wood covered by the new rule, have the burden of obtaining third-party certification. Online and catalog sellers of wood products delivered into California are also subject to the new rule. Civil penalties may be assessed for noncompliance. The fines can range from $1,000 to $10,000 per day for violations.

In informational workshops about the new rule, CARB has recommended that retailers insist that their suppliers provide CARB-compliant goods. Retailers can demonstrate their good faith efforts to comply with the new rule by having explicit written agreements with their suppliers.

According to CARB staff, the rule does not apply to antiques and used furniture.

Variance Procedure

CARB acknowledges that it has a procedure for issuing variances. Retailers who may want to explore obtaining a variance should contact their legal advisor. Some groups affected by the rule have sought to extend the compliance deadlines, expressing concerns about a number of problems they anticipate in implementing the rule. To date, CARB has expressed the view that delaying implementation is not warranted because progress is being made in qualifying the third-party compliance certifiers and because it has conducted outreach efforts with industry groups.

Other Regulatory and Enforcement Actions for Formaldehyde

Efforts have also been made to expand to the national level the California rule limiting formaldehyde emissions in composite wood products. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2008 considered a petition to adopt the California ATCM under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and to extend the scope of the regulation to manufactured housing. EPA rejected adopting the ATCM, but indicated that it would further study both cancer and non-cancer health risk concerns associated with formaldehyde in composite wood products. See http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2008/June/Day-27/t14618.htm

Retailers have also been targeted with Notices of Violation under California’s Proposition 65 based on allegations that certain furniture, including baby cribs, release formaldehyde from composite wood components.

Labels: ,


Click here to read more.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Court Upholds New York Law Requiring Out-of-State Retailers to Collect New York Sales Tax

Case: Amazon.com LLC and Amazon Services LLC v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Index No. 601247/08 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 2009)

The One Sentence Summary: A New York court dismissed Amazon.com’s suit challenging the constitutionality of a recently enacted New York State law requiring out-of-state companies, including those engaging exclusively in e-commerce, to collect state sales tax on transactions originating from within New York. Amazon.com had argued that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.




New York’s law (available here) requiring out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax took effect in April 2008. Under this law, an online retailer who pays any New York-based organization (such as an internet-based affiliate) compensation based on sales resulting from a referral by that affiliate to the retailer's website, must collect sales tax on any such sale made to a New York resident. (A New York-based organization includes any business that was formed in New York, does business in New York, or has a permanent place of abode in New York.) The fact that the online retailer is not itself located in New York, and does not have any connection to New York, is irrelevant. Retailers who generate $10,000 or less from New York sales in a fiscal year are exempt from the law.

Thus, an e-commerce retailer such as Amazon.com who does not have stores, offices or warehouses in the State of New York, must collect sales tax on each sale that it makes to a New York resident if that sale is a transaction for which the retailer will pay a commission or "revenue share" payment to an online affiliate that is based in New York.

From a practical standpoint, this means that e-commerce retailers who do not have a physical presence in New York and therefore did not previously collect sales tax from sales made to New York residents, must register with the State of New York as a sales tax vendor and track sales to New York residents made through New York-based online affiliates in the same way that they track (and collect tax on) sales to residents of states in which they do have a physical presence.

The decision, which was rendered by New York’s State Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten, is subject to appeal. Click here for a link to the text of the full decision.


Click here to read more.

Friday, January 16, 2009

New Legal Developments for California Employers

This posting provides a legal update summarizing many new legal developments in employment law for 2009. The update includes summaries of new statutes, case law, and regulations that will impact California (as well as non-California) employers.

Additionally linked is an update regarding the new FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Labor that went into effect on January 16th. This update summarizes the significant changes in the new FMLA regulations, and also contains a chart at the end of the summary, explaining the differences between the FMLA and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).

If you have any questions about the application of any of these laws to any particular situation effecting your company, please contact one of us in the Labor and Employment Practice Group.

Click here to read more.