In re Ames Department Stores
United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York
127 B.R. 744 (1991)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
A subsidiary of Zayre Corporation (Zayre) leased department-store premises from Pioneer Trust and Savings Bank (Pioneer) (plaintiff). Under the lease’s nonassignment clause, Pioneer needed to approve any assignment of the lease or else the lease would terminate. The clause made an exception for transfers between corporate affiliates. In 1986, the subsidiary assigned the lease to Zayre. In September 1988, Zayre agreed to sell all its stock to Ames Department Stores, Inc. (Ames). In October 1988, Zayre assigned the lease to another subsidiary, Zayre Illinois (defendant). The sale closed two days later, as a result of which Ames acquired control of Zayre Illinois. However, Zayre Illinois retained its corporate identity, and therefore under well-settled Illinois law, Zayre Illinois also retained the lease. Zayre Illinois planned to assign the lease to a furniture retailer. Pioneer objected, claiming that Zayre knew that control of Zayre Illinois would soon pass to an unaffiliated company, that therefore Zayre should have obtained Pioneer’s approval before assigning the lease to Zayre Illinois, and that Zayre’s failure to do so terminated the lease. The United States Bankruptcy Court had to rule on Pioneer’s claim as part of the proceedings following Ames’s 1990 bankruptcy.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Buschman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
