Branmar Theatre Co. v. Branmar, Inc.
1970 Del. Ch. LEXIS 101, 264 A.2d 526 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The sale of all stock in a corporate lessee to a new owner does not constitute an assignment of the lease in violation of a general anti-assignment clause. To restrict such a transfer of ownership, the lease must contain a specific provision prohibiting the sale of the corporate tenant's stock.
Facts:
- Joseph Luria, representing Branmar Shopping Center, negotiated a theatre lease with Isador Rappaport after satisfying himself of Rappaport's competence and industry connections.
- On June 9, 1967, Branmar Shopping Center (defendant) entered into a 20-year lease agreement for a theatre with Brentsun Realty Corp. (plaintiff), a corporation owned by the Rappaport family.
- Paragraph 12 of the lease prohibited the lessee from assigning the lease without the lessor's prior written consent, which could not be unreasonably withheld.
- The Rappaports were later approached by Muriel and Reba Schwartz, who operated other local theatres.
- Brentsun Realty Corp. attempted to formally assign the lease to the Schwartzes, but Branmar rejected the assignment.
- Subsequently, on May 29, 1969, the Rappaports sold all of their outstanding shares in Brentsun Realty Corp. to the Schwartzes.
- Upon learning of the stock sale, Branmar informed Brentsun that it considered the transaction a breach of the anti-assignment clause and declared the lease terminated.
Procedural Posture:
- Brentsun Realty Corp. filed an action for a declaratory judgment in the Delaware Court of Chancery (trial court).
- The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendant, Branmar Shopping Center, from cancelling the lease agreement.
- The defendant filed an answer requesting the court to find that the lease had been rightfully terminated.
- The case was heard by the Vice Chancellor, representing the court of first instance for this equitable claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the sale of all outstanding stock of a corporate lessee violate a lease provision that prohibits the lessee from assigning the lease without the lessor's prior written consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Short, Vice Chancellor
No, the sale of all outstanding stock of a corporate lessee does not violate a general anti-assignment clause. The transfer of stock in a corporate lessee, absent fraud, is not a violation of a clause prohibiting assignment of the lease itself. The court reasoned that the lessor, Branmar, chose to enter into a contract with a corporation, a distinct legal entity, rather than with the Rappaport family personally. By doing so, the lessor should have foreseen that the corporation's stock could be transferred. The lease, a detailed 16-page document, did not contain a provision restricting the sale of the lessee's stock; if this was the parties' intent, it would have been simple to include such a clause. The court also invoked the principle that forfeitures of leases are disfavored by law, and any ambiguity in a lease is construed against the drafter, in this case, the lessor. The argument that this was a 'personal performance' contract was rejected, as the court found no competent evidence that the new owners were less capable than the original ones.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle of corporate separateness, emphasizing that a corporation is an entity distinct from its shareholders. It serves as a crucial precedent for commercial leasing, establishing that general anti-assignment clauses are not sufficient to control the ownership of a corporate tenant. The ruling places a clear burden on landlords to draft specific language into lease agreements if they wish to restrict or have approval over changes in the tenant corporation's ownership. The case underscores the courts' reluctance to 'pierce the corporate veil' or expand contractual prohibitions beyond their plain language, particularly when it would result in the forfeiture of a property right.
