Some Days, A Stay Is Easier to Obtain Than Others

by Pepper Hamilton LLP

This article was published in Law360 on August 4, 2014. © Copyright 2014, Portfolio Media, Inc., publisher of Law360.

In A&F Enterprises v. IHOP Franchising LLC, 742 F.3d 764 (Seventh Cir. 2014), Chapter 11 debtors appealed a determination that their building leases were deemed rejected because they were not timely assumed. Both the bankruptcy court and the district court denied the request for a stay of the decision pending appeal. The Seventh Circuit reversed and granted the stay.

The general rule in a Chapter 11 case is that a nonresidential real estate lease must be assumed within 120 days (or 210 days with a court-approved extension), or else it will be deemed rejected. Other executory contracts can generally be assumed or rejected at any time before confirmation of a plan of reorganization.

A group of affiliated debtors (A&F) held 17 separate IHOP franchise agreements, with corresponding building and equipment leases. A&F argued that the building leases were just one part of the larger franchise arrangement so that it could assume the agreements at any time prior to confirmation.

In contrast, the franchisor (IHOP) argued that the building leases were subject to the shorter deadline applicable to real estate leases. Thus, when the leases were not assumed on a timely basis, they were deemed rejected. As a result the related franchise and equipment lease agreements expired under the terms of the agreements. The bankruptcy court sided with IHOP.

A&F appealed this decision. Since it was concerned that the appeal would be moot if IHOP sold the franchises to a third party while the appeal was pending, it also sought a stay pending appeal from first the bankruptcy court and then the district court. Both courts denied the request on the basis that A&F’s position “lacked merit.” In their view, the text of the Bankruptcy Code imposing the deadline for assumption of real estate leases did allow for not any exceptions.

Both parties appeared to assume that if IHOP obtained new franchisees, A&F would not be able to recover the franchises. Although the Seventh Circuit was not necessarily convinced that A&F would be unable to unwind an interim sale of the franchises if it ultimately won on appeal, the court proceeded as though that was the case.

The court noted that the standard for a stay pending appeal was the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction. It was required to consider (1) the likelihood of the moving party’s success on the merits, (2) the irreparable harm to each party, and (3) whether the public interest favored either side. It also noted that there is a “sliding scale” — meaning that the greater the likelihood of success, the less a party has to show that the balance of harms weighs in its favor, and vice versa.

For most of the restaurants, there were three contracts: a franchise agreement, a building sublease from IHOP and an equipment lease — all of which were cross-defaulted. The crux of the dispute was whether the agreements should be viewed as a single integrated contract, or as separate but related contracts.

The parties appeared to agree that the real estate leases could not be assumed without also assuming the franchises (and even if they could, the leases would be worthless since the only permitted use was as an IHOP restaurant). Similarly, A&F could not assume the franchises without also assuming the leases because the franchises automatically expired if A&F lost the rights to the leased buildings. A&F argued that since the leases and franchise agreements had to be assumed or rejected in tandem, the longer time limit should be applicable to all of the agreements.

In reaching a decision, the court began by considering the probability of A&F’s success on the merits. Although IHOP argued that the text of the Bankruptcy Code clearly controlled, the Seventh Circuit concluded that it was not that clear. While the shorter time limit was applicable to leases, it was equally clear that the longer time limit applied to the franchises. Given that the agreements and leases were inseparable, one of the time limits will necessarily control both circumstances. And the Seventh Circuit was inclined to give credence to A&F’s position on the merits:

There are powerful arguments in favor of A&F’s position. Chapter 11 is premised on giving debtors a full opportunity to reorganize, and provisions like §365(d)(4) that limit this opportunity are the exception not the rule. The franchise agreement is clearly the dominant contract and the focus of the parties’ bargaining, so prioritizing the lease lets the tail wag the dog. Furthermore, what little case law there is on this precise issue favors A&F’s position. Two bankruptcy courts have held on nearly identical facts that §365(d)(4) does not apply to a lease that is so tightly connected to a franchise arrangement.

Consequently, the court decided that its decision on the stay turned primarily on the balance of potential harms. The bankruptcy court did not make any factual findings regarding harm because it thought the legal question wasn’t even close. But that did not stop the Seventh Circuit from considering the issue.

Putting aside the question of whether any interim sale of the franchises could be undone if A&F prevailed on appeal, IHOP argued that the loss of the franchises would not be irreparable since A&F could be compensated by money.

The court’s first response was that valuation would be very difficult. “[A] primary assumption behind Chapter 11 is that reorganization preserves value better than liquidation, and leaving A&F with nothing but a damages remedy is the equivalent of converting the reorganization into a liquidation.” The court felt that A&F would be worth more if there was a reorganization rather than a liquidation, but found that valuation would require consideration of various hypothetical alternatives and would be an “impossible task.”

Further, damages were insufficient to protect A&F’s “interest in continuing to operate his business of choice.” A&F wanted to operate a business, not live on the income from a damages award. If the stay was not issued and IHOP was allowed to sell the franchises, this would put an end to A&F’s ability to reorganize. (The court rejected as premature IHOP’s response that A&F would be unlikely to achieve a successful reorganization in any event.)

On the other side of the harm equation, IHOP argued that the goodwill associated with its trademark would be damaged if A&F continued to operate the franchises. It pointed to “customer complaints, sales inspections, and bad press at one location, and a temporary shutdown at two other locations due to a licensing issue.” The court brushed this aside noting that IHOP did not contend that these were material breaches that would have warranted termination of the franchise agreements. And the court did not even address the public interest factor.

Because (1) A&F demonstrated “a” likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the harm to A&F was greater than to IHOP since it might be precluded from reorganizing, the court granted a stay pending appeal.

In essence, based on the relatively weak conclusion that A&F’s position “has substantial merit” in combination with the adverse effects of interfering with its attempts to pursue a reorganization, the court granted the stay. This seems like an unusually low threshold for granting a stay.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pepper Hamilton LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pepper Hamilton LLP

Pepper Hamilton LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.