Author: John S. Mairo

Rite Aid Bankruptcy Judge Issues Opinion on Important Post-Petition Landlord Lease Issues

Overview In a significant ruling for commercial landlords, dated November 3, 2025, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey denied three motions filed by HVP2 LLC, the landlord of a rejected Rite Aid lease in Troy, New York (New Rite Aid, LLC, Case No. 25-14861 (MBK)). The motions sought administrative rent, adequate protection payments, late fees, attorney fees, and conversion of the case to Chapter 7. Judge Michael B. Kaplan found that the debtor had satisfied its obligations and properly surrendered the premises, denying all of the landlord’s motions. Key Takeaways for Landlords Stub Rent Paid, But Timing Not Grounds for Late Fees: The court confirmed that “stub rent” (rent due between the petition date and first post-petition payment) qualifies as an administrative expense but emphasized that the Bankruptcy Code does not require payment by a specific date; however, it must be addressed prior to plan confirmation. Relatedly, late fees for May 2025 “stub rent” were denied since the Code imposes no deadline and plan confirmation had not occurred. Common Area Maintenance (CAM) Charges Dismissed as Untimely: HVP2 raised CAM charges only in a supplemental filing, which the court refused to consider. Even if timely, the pleadings lacked sufficient support to justify payment. Lease Surrender Deemed Proper: Despite HVP2’s claim that...

Delaware Bankruptcy Court Recognizes Crédito Real’s Prepacked Plan, Including Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases Allowed Under Mexican Law

In a case of first impression since the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in Purdue prohibiting nonconsensual third-party releases, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware granted recognition of Crédito Real’s prepacked plan, which contains nonconsensual third-party releases approved by a Mexican court. In overruling the objection of the U.S. International Development Finance Corp. (DFC), which argued that the Mexican plan would be contrary to U.S. public policy and the court lacked authority to recognize the plan in light of Purdue, Judge Thomas M. Horan found that “Purdue only goes so far,” its holding is limited to Chapter 11, and it “does not create an impediment” to recognition. Emphasizing that “comity is key,” the court found that Crédito Real’s “plan does not implicate the public policy exception.” It will be interesting to observe what broader or long-term implications, if any, the court’s decision will have. Will debtors attempt to utilize Chapter 15 as a vehicle to circumvent Purdue to gain approval in the U.S. of nonconsensual third-party releases allowed under the laws of foreign jurisdictions, or is the court’s ruling limited to the facts of this case? The answer to this question is unclear at the moment. Following his ruling, Judge Horan acknowledged that this is an “issue of significance” and indicated...