Insights
Publications

Non-Residential Lease Default Workouts, Security Deposits and Bankruptcy

April 24, 2020 Articles

What are the bankruptcy implications of the treatment of a tenant’s security deposit following a payment default?  Many non-residential tenants are now or are likely in the future to be unable to pay rent and landlords will consider their options for dealing with the security deposit in situations where they either do not intend to terminate the lease, perhaps in connection with a workout, or are barred from doing so by an eviction moratorium. A landlord may fear that a tenant is or is likely to become insolvent and so consider declaring that the amount of the security deposit equal to the defaulted rent has become the property of the landlord and that, if provided in the lease, the tenant is required to replenish the security deposit. The landlord may instead enter into a lease amendment abating and/or reducing the rent and, as part of the consideration for the amendment, the parties agree that the security deposit has been applied to past due rent and that it will be replenished under a payment schedule.

In addition to considering the likelihood of the tenant’s eventual bankruptcy, other considerations include the specific provisions of the lease, provisions in any applicable loan documents relating to tenant defaults and security deposits, and the restrictions on landlords’ actions in applicable local and state eviction and related moratoria.  As a practical matter, in the commercial context security deposits are only a balance sheet liability and there is no separate cash deposit account, so as described below, the preferred course of action is not to declare that the security deposit is applied to a rent arrearage.

Many landlords hold security deposits under lease provisions such as:

“Following an event of default by Tenant under this Lease, Landlord may use, apply or retain all or any portion of the Deposit for the payment of any rent or other charge in default, or the payment of any other sum to which Landlord may become obligated by Tenant’s default, or to compensate Landlord for any expense, loss or damage which Landlord may suffer thereby.”

In a tenant’s bankruptcy the landlord has potentially three separate claims: (i) for arrearages owed or accruing prior to the bankruptcy petition date; (ii) for amounts accruing after the petition date and prior to the effective date the bankruptcy estate rejects the lease; and (iii) for damages resulting from rejection of the lease.  Only claim (iii) is subject to any limit, which is the greater of “rent reserved” under the lease (which can include CAM and other periodic charges) for one year or 15% of the remaining term of the lease (up to a maximum of three years of rent reserved).

Subject to application of the security deposit towards the landlord’s claim (discussed below), claims (i) and (iii) would be treated as “general unsecured prepetition claims” in the tenant’s bankruptcy case, which would be paid consistent with other prepetition unsecured trade creditor claims (typically at a fraction of amount owed).  Claim (ii) is treated as an “administrative expense claim” which (at least in the absence of an agreement to the contrary) must be paid 100% before unsecured prepetition claims receive any payment.

If the landlord has not applied the security deposit to rent arrearages prepetition, then the landlord should be entitled to do so (i.e., apply it to claim (i)) after the bankruptcy is filed through stipulation/motion for relief from stay or by netting it in connection with its proof of claim filing process.  If the security deposit is not applied to rent arrearages prepetition, it technically will become part of the tenant’s bankruptcy estate, but will remain subject to the landlord’s security interest (perfected by having possession of the subject funds), rather than being available for payment of claims of other creditors and therefore will leave the landlord in the same financial position as it would have been in if it had applied the deposit towards the rent arrearage pre-bankruptcy.

If the landlord applies the security deposit towards rent arrearages and within 90 days thereafter the tenant files bankruptcy, then the landlord’s action may be “avoided” (undone) as a preferential transfer and/or setoff that improves the landlord’s net secured position during the 90-day pre-bankruptcy period pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 553(b).  The landlord presumably would have defenses to such claims, including that the application is not a preference because it did not result in the landlord receiving more than it otherwise would have if it had not been undertaken.  Although the landlord is likely ultimately to be allowed to apply the security deposit to the tenant’s debt, the cost of defending such litigation is likely to be higher than the cost of preparing the motion/stipulation to obtain stay relief to effectuate a setoff post-petition.

Firm Highlights

News

Monticello - Member Profile: Richard "Dick" Shapiro

Dick Shapiro was profiled in the April 2021 issue of Monticello , the quarterly journal of the Jefferson Society. Read the profile, here on pages 18-19.

Read More
News

Farella Advises MedMen to Win San Francisco Cannabis Retail Store Approval

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel provided national premium cannabis retailer MedMen Enterprises Inc.  with land use and permitting advice to win approval to open a new retail store on Union Street...

Read More
Publication

Eviction Moratorium Updates for California Commercial and Residential Landlords

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of eviction moratoriums have been enacted by the local, state, and federal governments. The California state moratorium has recently been extended and modified, and it...

Read More
News

Amy Briggs Inducted to American College of Coverage Counsel

Read More
News

Farella Partners in Development of La Cocina Municipal Marketplace

Farella Braun + Martel served as the pro bono legal partner to La Cocina in the development of La Cocina Municipal Marketplace in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood. The nation’s first women-led food hall will...

Read More
Publication

Bankruptcy Provisions in COVID Relief Legislation Impacting PPP Loans, Commercial Leases and Preference Claims

With the COVID-19 pandemic stretching on into another year, businesses continue to experience adverse effects. Bankruptcy filings, especially among retailers, were higher than average in 2020, and it is likely that more companies large...

Read More
Publication

Prop. 19 Passed, Here Is What You Need to Know

Proposition 19, which passed last month, has important consequences for all real property owners in California. It is important to act quickly before Proposition 19's effective date of February 16, 2021. Proposition 19 has...

Read More
News

Farella Assists Developers Win San Francisco Transbay Parcel F Tower Approval

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel represented the joint venture of Hines, Urban Pacific Development, and Goldman Sachs to secure approval for the construction of a 61-story, 800-foot tall mixed-use tower adjacent...

Read More
Publication

Hidden Liens in Custom Crush Relationships: How to Avoid Being Caught Between Creditors

Custom crush is an effective method for vintners to start and grow their label and brand without requiring the capital intensive investment of a dedicated winery. When evaluating potential custom-crush facilities and providers, wine...

Read More
Publication

What to Do When Commercial Leases End Up in Bankruptcy

The COVID-19 pandemic is forcing many businesses to close, leaving landlords in the lurch. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to shake up the nation’s economy. Long-standing companies such as JC Penney, J. Crew, Neiman Marcus, Modell’s...

Read More