In re Buffets Holdings Inc.
Decision Date | 16 May 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 08-10141(MFW).,08-10141(MFW). |
Citation | 387 B.R. 115 |
Parties | In re BUFFETS HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Debtors. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Delaware |
Erin Edwards, Joel A. Waite, John T. Dorsey, Joseph M. Barry, M. Blake Cleary, Nathan D. Grow, Patrick A. Jackson, Pauline K. Morgan, Ryan M. Bartley, Sean T. Greecher, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE, for Debtors.
Before the Court is the Motion of the Debtors2 for approval of the assumption and assignment of an unexpired lease of non-residential real property located in Warrington, Pennsylvania, (the "Assumption Motion") and the Debtors' First and Third Motions for authority to reject certain non-residential real property leases, including property located in Moline, Illinois, and Muskegon, Michigan (the "Rejection Motions"). The Motions are opposed by FP1 LLC and FP2 LLC (collectively "FP"), which assert that the leases are not separate but are integrated into master leases which must be assumed or rejected in toto. For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the Motions.
The Debtors filed voluntary petitions under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on January 22, 2008. The Debtors comprise the nation's largest steak-buffet restaurant chain and the second largest restaurant company in the family-dining segment of the restaurant industry. As of the filing of their bankruptcy cases, the Debtors had more than 600 company-operated restaurants and 16 franchise locations in over 40 states.
Prior to their bankruptcy filings, in 2002 and 2003 the Debtors sought to recapitalize, replace their expensive secured debt, and issue a dividend to shareholders. (Duncan Tr, 17:17-18:12, 19:12-19.)3 This was accomplished in three stages. In stage one, the Debtors entered into a sale/leaseback transaction in which they sold certain restaurants and the ground on which they stood and then leased them back. This resulted in cash to pay part of the secured debt and took the restaurants and the debt off their balance sheet. In stage two, the Debtors entered into a sale/leaseback transaction with respect to twenty-nine restaurants where they owned the building but not the land on which it stood. In that transaction, which is the subject of this dispute, the Debtors assigned their ground leases and sold the buildings constructed thereon to FP.4 The Debtors then subleased from FP the grounds and buildings pursuant to four Master Leases. The Debtors received a sum of cash (approximately $35 million) and removed the restaurants and debt from their balance sheet. The conclusion of the first two stages permitted the Debtors in the third stage to refinance their secured debt at more reasonable rates and to issue a dividend to shareholders.
On the petition date, the Debtors filed their First Motion for authority to reject certain non-residential real property leases, including a lease with FP1 in Moline, Illinois. On February 22, 2008, the Debtors filed their Third Motion to reject certain other non-residential real property leases, including a lease with FP2 in Muskegon, Michigan. On March 25, 2008, the Debtors filed the Assumption Motion with respect to the Warrington lease they have with FP2. The Debtors have ceased operations at each of the three locations and want to reject or assign the leases in order to cut costs. (Tr. 100:15-101:6.) FP filed objections to the three Motions, and a joint evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the individual leases were severable from the Master Leases and could be assumed or rejected separately was held on April 14, 2008.5 The parties have briefed the issues and the matter is ripe for decision.
This Court has jurisdiction over these Matters which are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(b)(2)(A), (M) & (O).
Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, a debtor has the right to assume or reject an unexpired non-residential real property lease in accordance with section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. § 365(a). See also N.L.R.B. v. Bildisco and Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 528, 104 S.Ct. 1188, 79 L.Ed.2d 482 (1984) ( ); In re Convenience USA, Inc., No. 01-81478, 2002 WL 230772, at *7 (Bankr.M.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2002) ( )
If the debtor decides to assume a lease, however, it must generally assume all the terms of the lease and may not pick and choose only favorable terms to be assumed. In re Italian Cook Oil Corp., 190 F.2d 994, 997 (3d Cir.1951). See also In re Fleming Cos., Inc., 499 F.3d 300, 308 (3d Cir.2007) ( ); In re ANC Rental Corp., Inc., 277 B.R. 226, 238-39 (Bankr.D.Del.2002) ( ).
Section 365(f)(1) states that a debtor's right to assume and assign a lease is enforceable notwithstanding any provision in a lease which prohibits, restricts, or conditions the assignment of that lease. Consequently, the courts will not enforce provisions designed solely to impair the debtor's ability to assume or reject leases. 11 U.S.C. § 365(f). See also Fleming Cos., 499 F.3d at 307 ( ); In re Rickel Home Ctrs., Inc., 209 F.3d 291, 299 (3d Cir.2000) ) ; The Shaw Group, Inc. v. Bechtel Jacobs Co., LLC (In re The IT Group, Inc.), 350 B.R. 166, 179 (Bankr. D.Del.2006) ( ); Convenience USA, 2002 WL 230772, at *7 ) .
The fact that there is one document reflecting the parties' agreements does not mean that it is one contract. 2 William L. Norton, Jr. & William L. Norton, III, Norton Bankr.L. & Prac. § 39:11 (2d ed.1999).
The determination of whether a specific contract or lease is an indivisible agreement or is several agreements in one is a question of state law. See, e.g., In re T & H Diner, Inc., 108 B.R. 448, 453 (D.N.J.1989) () (citations omitted); In re Adelphia Bus. Solutions, Inc., 322 B.R. 51, 55 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2005) ( ); In re Wolflin Oil, LLC, 318 B.R. 392, 397 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2004) () (emphasis added) (quoting In re FFP Operating Partners, LP, No. 03-90171, 2004 WL 3007079, at *1 (Bankr.N.D.Tex. Aug. 12, 2004)); In re Plum Run Serv. Corp., 159 B.R. 496, 499 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1993) ( ).
Under Illinois law,6 the test for severability depends on the intent of the parties. See, e.g., Super Stop Petroleum, Inc. v. Clark Retail Enters. (In re Clark Retail Enters.), 308 B.R. 869, 888 (Bankr. N.D.Ill.2004) ( ). The issue is whether the parties intended a single contract even though it may be expressed in separate agreements or whether they intended separate contracts even though they are "bundled" together in one agreement.
Illinois courts use the "four corners" approach to contract interpretation, under which the courts will confine their review to the four corners of the document itself if it is not ambiguous to ascertain the parties'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Plant Insulation Co. (In re Plant Insulation Co.), C 12–01887 RS.
...only precedents Ace invokes in support of this contention is an out-of-circuit opinion from a Bankruptcy Court, In re Buffets Holdings, Inc., 387 B.R. 115, 119 (Bankr.D.Del.2008), and the District Court's opinion, discussed above, in In re Thorpe. Neither is of assistance. In re Buffets may......
-
Southland Royalty Co. v. Wamsutter LLC (In re Southland Royalty Co.)
...As explained, there are no real covenants in the L63 Agreement and thus this alternative theory is moot.104 In re Buffets Holdings, Inc. , 387 B.R. 115, 124 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008).105 See, e.g. , Baker v. Jones , 69 Wyo. 314, 240 P.2d 1165, 1171 (1952) ("Primarily the intention of the partie......
-
In re Abitibibowater Inc.
...In re Exide Tech., 340 B.R. 222, 228 (Bankr.D.Del.2006) aff'd 2008 WL 522516 (D.Del. Feb. 27, 2008). See also In re Buffets Holdings, Inc., 387 B.R. 115, 119 (Bankr.D.Del.2008)("If the debtor decides to assume a lease, however, it must generally assume all the terms of the lease and may not......
-
Foothills Tex., Inc. v. MTGLQ Investors, L.P. (In re Foothills Tex., Inc.)
...46.Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Old Republic National Title Ins. Co., 83 F.3d 735, 741–42 (5th Cir.1996); In re Buffets Holdings, Inc., 387 B.R. 115 (Bankr.D.Del.2008) (relying on Norton Bankr.L. & Prac. § 39:11 (2d ed. 1999)) (refusing to apply the doctrine due to treatment under Illinois......
-
Seventh Circuit Suggests That Longer Assumption/ Rejection Deadline Should Govern Integrated Franchise And Commercial Lease Agreements
...June 13, 2013); In re Contract Research Solutions, Inc. , 2013 BL 117998 (Bankr. D. Del. May 1, 2013); In re Buffets Holdings, Inc. , 387 B.R. 115 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008). Courts have also ruled that related "inseparable" or "integrated" agreements must be assumed or rejected together rather ......
-
All Or Nothing: Delaware Bankruptcy Court Decision In Physiotherapy Holdings Addresses Contract 'Integration' For Purposes Of Assumption Under Section 365(a)
...agreements found to be integrated in In re Holland Enterprises, Inc., 25 B.R. 301 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 1982) and In re Buffets Holdings, Inc., 387 B.R. 115 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008). The court first pointed to the indemnity provisions in the two contracts, noting that the indemnity under the Master......