Ground leases are an important - if rather unusual - part of the realty financing market. Because they typically cover large pricey residential or commercial properties like Rockefeller Center and The Empire State Building, to name 2, and last a very long time (99 years and approximately start) the likelihood of something unanticipated or unintentional taking place is high. This likelihood increases drastically if, as highlighted listed below, one or both of the lease celebrations' apply for insolvency. Accordingly, property experts should keep in mind and take care when entering into any transaction involving a ground lease.

* * * *

Ground leases have actually been around since the Middle Ages and insolvency laws have actually existed since at least Roman Times. Given this long history, it is not a surprise that a great deal of law has developed on the interaction of insolvency and ground leases. This is particularly so given that the arrival of the "modern" United States Bankruptcy Act in 1898 and the extensive modifications to title 11 of the United States Code implemented to it in 1978, when Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Code") was enacted. [1] In particular, Section 365 of the Code supplies special guidelines for the presumption or rejection of a ground lease-as well as its prospective sale and transfer by a debtor to a 3rd party.

Knowing these guidelines is crucial to any real-estate specialist. Here are the basics:

A ground lease, sometimes referred to as a "land lease," is a distinctive mechanism for the advancement of commercial real estate, delighted in by those tasked with establishing the Rockefeller Center and the Empire State Building, for example. The plan enables prolonged lease terms often as much as 99 years (with the choice of renewal) for the landowner to keep ownership of the land and collect lease while the developer, in theory, might surpass the land to its benefit also. Both traditionally and presently, this atypical relationship in the real estate area generates sufficient conversation weighing the structure's pros and cons, which inherently grow more made complex in the face of a ground lessor or ground lessee's bankruptcy.

According to a lot of courts, consisting of the Second Circuit, the threshold question in evaluating the abovementioned possibilities regarding a ground lease in personal bankruptcy court is whether the ground lease in concern is a "real lease" for the purpose of Section 365. Section 365 applies, making the ground lease eligible for, presumption or rejection, just if it is a "true lease." [2] While exactly what constitutes a "true lease" will vary state by state, it is widely accepted that "the appropriate inquiry for a court in figuring out whether § 365 [] governs a contract fixing residential or commercial property rights is whether 'the celebrations meant to enforce commitments and provide rights significantly various from those emerging from the common landlord/tenant relationship.'" Intl. Trade Ad. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic, 936 F. 2d 744 (2d Cir. 1991). This "intent" is determined based upon that of the celebrations at the time of the lease's execution. In re Big Buck Brewery Steakhouse, Bkrptcy No. 04-56761-SWR, Case No. 05-CV-74866 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 9, 2006). Despite there being "a 'strong presumption that a deed and lease ... are what they purport to be,'" the financial substance of the lease is the main determination of whether the lease is thought about "real" or not, and in some states (like California), is the only proper element to weigh. Liona Corp., N.V. v. PCH Associates (In re PCH Associates), 804 F. 2d 193 (2d Cir. 1986) pointing out Fox v. Peck Iron & Metal Co., 25 Bankr. 674, 688 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1982). Generally, the more away those "financial truths" are from the normal landlord/tenant relationship, the less most likely a lease will be thought about a "real lease" for the function of Section 365. Id. For instance, if residential or commercial property was acquired by the lessor particularly for the lessee's usage or entirely to secure tax advantages, or for a purchase cost unrelated to the land's worth, it is less likely to be a true lease.

If the ground lease is in truth figured out to be a "true lease" (and subject to court approval), the selected trustee or debtor-in-possession in a personal bankruptcy case may then either assume or turn down the lease as it would any other unexpired lease held by the debtor.

However, exceptions use. These greatly depend on a debtor's "adequate guarantees" to the remaining parties to the contracts. Section 365 of the Code offers that if there has actually been a default on a debtor's unexpired lease, the DIP might not presume the previously mentioned lease unless, at the time of presumption, the DIP: (i) cures or offers "appropriate guarantee" that they will in fact "without delay cure [] such default"