In Re Martin Paint Stores
36 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 873, 199 B.R. 258, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 971 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a co-tenant in a non-shopping center commercial building is not a party in interest and therefore lacks standing to object to a debtor-tenant's assumption and assignment of its lease, as the statute's protections are intended for the landlord, not for other tenants.
Facts:
- A debtor operated a retail paint and hardware store in a commercial building owned by Feldco Realty Company ('Feldco').
- Another tenant in the same building, Persuasion Ladies’ Stores ('Persuasion'), had a lease with Feldco containing an exclusivity clause preventing Feldco from renting space to any other tenant who sells ladies' clothes exclusively.
- The debtor's lease contained a use clause restricting the premises to the sale of hardware, paint, and related items.
- After filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the debtor decided to liquidate and auctioned its lease for the premises.
- Pretty Girl, Inc., a retailer that sells ladies' clothing exclusively, submitted the highest and best offer to assume the debtor's lease.
- Persuasion’s rent was a fixed amount and did not depend on its sales volume or income.
- At the time of the proposed assignment, Persuasion already faced competition from five or six other ladies' clothing stores operating within a two-block radius.
Procedural Posture:
- The debtor, a paint and hardware retailer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The debtor moved to assume its lease and assign it to Pretty Girl, Inc., the winner of an auction for the lease.
- Feldco Realty Company, the landlord, objected to the proposed assignment.
- Persuasion Ladies’ Stores, another tenant in the building, also filed an objection to the assignment.
- The Bankruptcy Court conducted an evidentiary hearing to consider the objections from both the landlord and the co-tenant.
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 a co-tenant in a non-shopping center commercial building have standing under Bankruptcy Code § 365 to object to a debtor-tenant's assignment of its lease to a new tenant?
Opinions:
Majority - Bernstein, J.
No. A co-tenant in a non-shopping center lacks independent standing under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code to object to a debtor-tenant's lease assignment because the protections of § 365 are designed to ensure the landlord receives the benefit of their bargain, not to enforce the rights of third parties like other tenants. The court reasoned that to be a 'party in interest' with standing, one must be the debtor, a creditor of the estate, or hold an equitable claim against the estate. Persuasion is not a creditor of the debtor and holds no rights under the debtor's lease; its rights arise from its own separate lease with the landlord, Feldco. Therefore, Persuasion's status is analogous to a 'creditor of a creditor,' which does not confer standing. While the court may consider the impact on other tenants when assessing detriment to the landlord, this does not grant those tenants an independent right to object. Persuasion was merely 'piggybacking' on the landlord's objection without a legal right of its own to assert in the bankruptcy proceeding.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the narrow scope of standing for third parties to object to lease assignments under Bankruptcy Code § 365 in a non-shopping center context. It reinforces that the 'adequate assurance of future performance' standard is primarily for the economic protection of the landlord, not other tenants. By preventing co-tenants from using their own contractual rights with a landlord (like exclusivity clauses) to block a debtor's value-maximizing transaction, the ruling promotes the core bankruptcy policies of maximizing the value of the estate for creditors and disfavoring forfeitures.
Unlock the full brief for In Re Martin Paint Stores