Lawline Online Course: A field Manual for Involuntary Bankruptcies - Thursday, 11/5/2020 at 3:00pm EST
Make sure to Reserve your online seat - (Click Here)

Please Note: We are OPEN, continuing to represent clients and accepting new clients However, due to local directives, all meetings and interviews can be conducted via telephonic or video conferencing. Do not hesitate to contact us with any questions, concerns or requests for information. Our free 15 minute telephone consultation remains available.

Call For Free 15 Minute Consultation(212) 739-7599

Wayne Greenwald, P.C.

The Demise Of Nunc Pro Tunc Lease Rejection

  • Wayne Greenwald, P.C.
  • Published: August 27, 2020
The Demise Of Nunc Pro Tunc Lease Rejection


Bankruptcy Code § 365(b) enables trustees and debtors in possession (“Trustees”) to “reject” or terminate pre-petition leases. This leaves the non-debtor lessor without a lessee and with a “rejection” claim for what may be less than the rent reserved under the balance of the lease.[2]

Before a lease is rejected, Trustees must pay and remain current on post-petition rent due under leases.[3] Unpaid post-petition rent is an “administration” claim with priority over unsecured claims and sharing estate assets with other administration priority claims, such as the Trustees’ professionals[4].

Trustees sometimes seek to reject leases with the date of rejection being “nunc pro tunc” or retroactive to an earlier date. This retroactive rejection reduces the Trustees’ and debtors’ estates’ obligations and exposure to landlords for post-petition lease obligations.[5] It’s not good for landlords.

Obtaining “nunc pro tunc” rejection required Trustees:

(1) moving to reject the lease promptly;

(2) promptly acting to set the motion for hearing;

(3) vacating the premises; and

(4) showing the Landlord had an improper motive in opposing rejection of the lease nunc pro tunc. [6]

The End of Nunc Pro Tunc

Recently, in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 696, 206 L.Ed.2d 1 (2020)(“Acevedo”), the United States Supreme Court, rejected the effectiveness of a nunc pro tunc order. It held:

“[f]ederal courts may issue nunc pro tunc orders, or ‘now for then’ orders, … to ‘reflect [ ] the reality’ of what has already occurred …. ‘Such a decree presupposes a decree allowed, or ordered, but not entered, through inadvertence of the court.’ … Put colorfully, ‘[n]unc pro tunc orders are not some Orwellian vehicle for revisionist history — creating ‘facts’ that never occurred in fact.”[7]

The Demise Of Nunc Pro Tunc Lease Rejection

The End of Lease Rejections Nunc Pro Tunc

More recently, In re Donghia, Inc.,[8] applied Acevedo to decline making a lease rejection nunc pro tunc. Following Acevedo, that court, “[p]ut plainly, the court cannot make the record what it is not.”

Even if Trustees meet the standard for nunc pro tunc lease rejection, bankruptcy courts seem precluded from granting it by invoking “some Orwellian vehicle” to “make the record what it is not.”[9] Retroactive lease rejections, like Orwell’s Winston Smith,[10] may cease to exist.

Remember that the next time someone tries one you or your client.


[1]© 2020 Wayne M. Greenwald
[2] Rejection claims may not exceed: (A) the rent reserved by the lease, without acceleration, for the greater of one year, or 15%, not to exceed three years, of the remaining term of such lease, following the earlier of: (i) the date of the filing of the petition; and (ii) the date on which such lessor repossessed, or the lessee surrendered, the leased property; plus (B) any unpaid rent due under such lease, without acceleration, on the earlier of such dates; 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(6).
[3] 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) and (5).
[4]11 U.S.C. § 503(b)
[5] See, 25 No. 6 J. Bankr. L. & Prac. NL Art. 3 Understanding the Commercial Landlord’s Claims in a Tenant Bankruptcy (“Landlords are adversely affected by retroactive lease rejection because of the effect it may have on their entitlement to priority payments.”)
[6] See, In re Donghia, Inc., 2020 WL 2465503, at *3–4 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 12, 2020). citing, In re At Home Corp., 392 F.3d 1064, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom. Pac. Shores Dev., LLC, v. At Home Corp., 546 U.S. 814 (2005).
[7] In re Telles, 2020 WL 2121254, at *1 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020), citing, Acevedo, 140 S. Ct. at 700-01.
[8] 2020 WL 2465503, at *3
[9] Id.
[10] The hero in George Orwell’s book “1984.”
Wayne Greenwald, P.C.

For experienced and creative legal representation, contact
Wayne Greenwald, P.C. We serve clients throughout New
York and across the nation. Call us at (212) 739-7599.