News & Resources - Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC

Expecting the Unexpected: Why Force Majeure Provisions Matter in an Uncertain World

Ansell Grimm July 8, 2025

“Stuff happens.” In business, as in life, the unanticipated, unexpected, and unprecedented can upend the most rock-solid plans or sincerest of intentions. That is why attorneys who negotiate and draft commercial contracts put so much effort into identifying and addressing every possible risk, event, or circumstance that could negatively impact their client. But as skilled and careful as a lawyer may be and as comprehensive as an agreement may be, “stuff happens” that neither party may have seen coming or imagined could come to pass. The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated lockdowns, supply chain disruptions, and other challenges certainly fell into that category.

The pandemic’s impact on businesses large and small across a wide swath of industries and parties’ inability to meet their promised contractual obligations shined a spotlight on a common provision often glossed over as boilerplate: “force majeure.” Derived from the French for “superior force,” force majeure clauses are designed to allocate risk for extraordinary circumstances that prevent performance under a contract.

While the worst of COVID may be behind us, other global commerce uncertainties, such as tariffs, supply chain disruptions, other health epidemics, and ever more frequent natural disasters, mean that force majeure provisions will likely be invoked far more than before the pandemic struck. Indeed, that is precisely what happened throughout the pandemic and in its aftermath, as businesses sought to be released from obligations and insulated from liability for their inability to fulfill their promises.

Accordingly, understanding what these clauses cover — and what they don’t — and carefully drafting them to address all issues of concern is of increasing importance to businesses so they can manage risks and navigate contractual obligations more effectively. Recent developments have made two occurrences of particular concern in the context of force majeure provisions: tariffs and supply chain disruptions.

Key Components of a Force Majeure Provision

A force majeure clause typically excuses a party from liability or performance obligations when certain unexpected events beyond their control occur. These clauses generally list specific triggering events, such as natural disasters, war, terrorism, government actions, labor strikes, and epidemics.

Key components of a force majeure clause include:

Defined Force Majeure Events: The clause should specify events considered force majeure, such as acts of God, government actions, and pandemics.
Causation Requirement: The clause should require the affected party to demonstrate that the event directly prevented or hindered contractual performance.
Mitigation Obligations: Affected parties may be required to take reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the event.
Notice Requirements: The contract should set forth timelines and procedures for notifying the other party of force majeure claims.
Consequences of Invocation: The clause should define whether obligations are suspended, excused, or terminated.
Alternative Performance Mechanisms: Many contracts provide for alternative sourcing, price adjustments, or renegotiation rather than outright nonperformance due to a covered force majeure occurrence.

Courts generally interpret force majeure clauses narrowly, meaning the event in question must be explicitly covered by the contract, a point that pandemic-related litigation made abundantly clear. Parties that attempted to cite the pandemic and its associated fallout to invoke force majeure provisions usually found themselves on the losing side if the applicable provision did not specifically include terms like “epidemics,” “pandemics,” and “public health emergencies,” or “government action” or “regulatory changes” as to lockdowns, travel bans, business closures, and the like.

Force Majeure and Tariffs

The current administration has made tariffs a cornerstone of its economic approach. These government-imposed duties on imported or exported goods can significantly impact companies that rely on global commerce, as almost all do in one way or another. While increased tariffs may raise costs and disrupt supply chains, their classification as a force majeure event that would relieve a party from its contractual obligations depends on the clause’s language and interpretation.

For example, a tariff hike imposed suddenly by the administration might qualify as force majeure if the contract explicitly includes “government action” or “changes in law” as triggering events. However, predictable tariff risks, such as those resulting from ongoing trade negotiations, may not be considered force majeure.

Courts have generally been reluctant to classify tariffs as force majeure unless they render performance impossible rather than merely more expensive. Thus, businesses should carefully draft force majeure provisions to include government-imposed financial burdens where necessary.

Force Majeure and Supply Chain Disruptions

Tariffs aren’t the only things that can upend global supply chains. They are also vulnerable to a host of other unexpected disruptions. One container ship stuck in the Suez Canal or a bridge collapse in Baltimore’s harbor can send shockwaves through markets across the globe. Force majeure clauses can help address these challenges, but as noted, their applicability depends on specific contract language and the nature of the disruption.

Material Shortages and Factory Shutdowns: If a supplier cannot obtain necessary materials due to unexpected plant closures or material unavailability, it may invoke force majeure, provided the clause covers supply chain disruptions.
Transportation and Logistics Issues: Events such as port closures, shipping delays due to labor strikes, and unforeseen regulatory changes can disrupt contractual performance. Explicitly mentioning transportation failures in force majeure clauses can help parties avoid disputes.
Allocation of Limited Resources: Some contracts require suppliers to allocate limited goods among customers in a fair and commercially reasonable manner when force majeure is invoked.

With force majeure provisions no longer relegated to contractual backwaters, businesses and their counsel should review and, if necessary, revise their agreements to ensure they provide protections commensurate with the risks posed by a volatile and unpredictable world.

If you have questions regarding force majeure provisions, please contact Ansell.Law Partner Seth M. Rosenstein.

Rick Brodsky Secures Planning Board Approval for 340 Residential Units and Starbucks Pad Site Despite Community Opposition

Ansell Grimm July 2, 2025

In a significant land use victory, Rick Brodsky, Shareholder and Co-Chair of the Zoning and Land Use Department, successfully secured Planning Board approval for the construction of 340 new residential apartments and a dedicated Starbucks pad site in Middletown, New Jersey.

The proposed development, located just off the Garden State Parkway Exit 109 interchange, had drawn significant opposition from neighborhood groups and nearby residents, citing traffic, density, environmental, and quality-of-life concerns. Despite these objections, the Board voted to approve the project after a comprehensive presentation by Brodsky and the development team. Their presentation included detailed legal and expert testimony addressing the project’s consistency with municipal planning objectives, compliance with applicable zoning ordinances, and a demonstrated commitment to addressing environmental and community impacts.

“This approval reflects not only the merits of the project, but also the rigorous preparation and legal advocacy put forth on behalf of our clients,” said Brodsky. “This project represents a forward-thinking investment in Middletown’s future, and we are proud to have guided it through the approval process.”

The 340 residential units are planned to offer a mix of studio, 1-, 2- & 3-bedroom rental units in a thoughtfully designed community. At the same time, the Starbucks pad site will serve both residents and the greater public with convenient access to food and beverage offerings.

The project is expected to break ground after the final permitting and compliance process is completed.

Ansell.Law Litigators Successfully Discharge Improperly Levied Lis Pendens, Allowing Client To Proceed With Efforts To Sell Commercial Property

Ansell Grimm June 27, 2025

In real estate, a lis pendens is a notice filed in public records to alert potential buyers or lenders that a property is subject to a pending legal claim or dispute that could affect ownership or title. Such an encumbrance on a property can render it difficult, if not impossible, for the owner to sell it or obtain additional financing and otherwise negatively impact its value.

An Ansell.Law client who urgently needed to sell their commercial property recently faced this predicament when a putative buyer improperly filed a lis pendens on the property, frustrating the owner’s efforts to dispose of it. Ansell.Law Shareholder Anthony J. D’Artiglio and Associate Brian J. Ashnault then successfully moved in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, to discharge the lis pendens, removing the encumbrance and allowing the client to proceed with his sales efforts.

The matter arose after the Firm’s client/property owner entered into a purchase and sale agreement with a buyer to sell the property on a time-of-the-essence closing date. After the buyer was unprepared to close on the closing date and several closing dates thereafter, the seller terminated the purchase and sale agreement due to the breach of its terms. The putative buyer incorrectly claimed that the termination of the purchase and sale agreement was improper and filed a lis pendens against the subject property.

Ansell successfully argued that under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-7(b) and prevailing case law, the lis pendens should be discharged as the buyer could not make the required showing to maintain the encumbrance on the property. Specifically, Ansell persuaded the court that the buyer could not demonstrate that its claims against the owner were meritorious, such that it could maintain the extraordinary burden of a lis pendens on the property.

Following contentious briefing and oral argument, the court agreed with Ansell’s argument and granted its application to discharge the lis pendens. As a result of D’Artiglio and Ashnault’s aggressive advocacy, the lis pendens on the subject property was discharged, and the encumbrance was lifted from the property.

If you have questions about this case or other real estate litigation matters, please contact Anthony D’Artiglio, Brian Ashnault, or your Ansell.Law attorney for assistance.

Christopher Raike Elevated to Ansell.Law’s Human Resources Manager

Ansell Grimm June 24, 2025

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that Christopher Raike has been elevated to Human Resources Manager. Raike joined the Firm in April 2024 as the Human Resources Generalist and quickly had a tremendous positive impact.

“Chris has been an outstanding addition to the Firm,” said President and Managing Shareholder Michael V. Benedetto. “In just over a year, his ability to effect change for the better has enhanced every department. Chris is a thoughtful and strategic leader, and we are excited to see him continue to elevate our Firm culture.“

As HR manager, Raike is responsible for recruiting and retaining Ansell.Law’s professional staff. In addition to talent development, he focuses on process improvement that fuels profitability and growth. Raike takes a holistic approach when implementing policies and procedures to foster a workplace where employees can thrive. Under his guidance, the Firm has executed several new initiatives to improve the employee experience, including a new HRIS system, an overhaul of the Firm’s health insurance, and a renewed focus on retaining top talent. “Our competitive advantage is our people. When our focus is on our people, we enable them to do what’s best for our clients,” said Raike.

Raike earned his degree at Rutgers University with a double major in Human Resources Management and Labor Studies and Employment Relations. He is a SHRM Certified Professional. Before joining Ansell.Law, Raike worked in the human resources department of a civil engineering firm.

Ansell.Law’s Litigation Team Secures Decisive Second Circuit Victory Over Serial Plaintiff

Ansell Grimm June 23, 2025

Res judicata is a legal principle designed to prevent a party from refiling claims that were adjudicated conclusively in prior litigation. That principle was successfully asserted by a team of Ansell.Law litigators when the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court victory they obtained against a serial plaintiff who improperly tried for another bite at the apple.

Morgan v. Hartman involved a plaintiff, Michael Morgan, who was the sole owner of a company that provided temporary rehabilitation therapists for healthcare facilities. Morgan agreed to sell his business to a company owned by Ansell.Law’s clients.

The parties’ relationship deteriorated after the closing, resulting in litigation. The parties settled many of the issues and agreed to binding arbitration to resolve their remaining disputes. An arbitrator issued a final arbitration award, which was confirmed and entered as a judgment by the New York State Supreme Court. Morgan simultaneously filed two other state court lawsuits arising from the same issues.

Notwithstanding his unappealable arbitration loss, Morgan then filed yet another lawsuit against the defendants, this time in federal court. Like his state court suits, Morgan’s federal lawsuit asserted claims arising from and relating to the purchase of his business.

Ansell.Law moved to dismiss Morgan’s claims on the grounds that they were barred under the doctrine of res judicata. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. But Morgan continued to pursue his claims, appealing the district court’s ruling to the Second Circuit.

On appeal, Ansell.Law’s Anthony D’Artiglio, Layne Feldman, and Anthony Sango successfully defended the dismissal, with the court agreeing that “Because the claims asserted in this action arise from the same factual grouping as the previously litigated claims, the district court was correct that the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.”

The Firm congratulates Anthony, Layne, and Anthony for their excellent work in obtaining this decisive victory for our clients.

Purchasing and Foreclosing on Tax Liens in New Jersey: How It Works and What Potential Real Estate Investors Should Consider

Ansell Grimm June 19, 2025

By Anthony J. D’Artiglio and Jonathan D. Sherman

New Jersey real estate owners who fail or neglect to pay their property taxes face the potential loss of their homes and the forfeiture of any equity they’ve built. But the financial fallout of unpaid property taxes also offers private investors a potentially lucrative opportunity to benefit from the owner’s default. Property tax debts become liens held by the township or other taxing authority, and those lienholders are required to regularly sell their rights to individuals or entities rather than shouldering the burden of maintaining, owning, or selling the properties.

Purchasing and foreclosing on tax liens in New Jersey is a unique and nuanced avenue for investing in residential or commercial real estate. While the process can present a purchaser with significant upsides, tax lien purchasing requires a solid understanding of local laws, procedures, and risks in order to protect and maximize the return on investment.

What Is a Tax Lien and What Rights Does a Lienholder Acquire?

A tax lien is a legal claim placed by a government taxing entity on real estate due to unpaid property taxes. Once it imposes the lien, the municipality or township has the authority to sell a tax lien certificate to collect the delinquent amounts. The investor who buys the lien effectively pays the taxes on behalf of the property owner, in exchange for the right to collect the debt with interest and penalties. If the homeowner doesn’t pay the past due amounts plus up to potentially 18% interest (referred to as redeeming the lien), the lien purchaser can elect to foreclose and seek to take full ownership of the property.

Lien Sale and Purchase Process

Each taxing municipality in New Jersey conducts an annual (or more frequent) tax lien sale for delinquent, unredeemed properties in its jurisdiction. The process is governed by the New Jersey Tax Sale Law, which establishes specific procedures and timelines and outlines the respective rights of the property owner and lienholder.

Here’s how the process typically proceeds:

Delinquency and Public Notice: When a property owner fails to pay property taxes, the tax collector in the municipality compiles a list of delinquent properties and prepares for a tax sale. By law, the city must publish a notice in a local newspaper and post the list publicly. The notice must run at least four weeks prior to the sale.
Auction: New Jersey uses a “bid-down interest” system. The interest rate on tax liens is capped at 18%, but investors compete by bidding down the interest rate they are willing to accept. Bidding may go as low as 0%, in which case investors may bid a premium (additional money paid upfront) to win the lien. The lowest interest rate (or highest premium) wins the lien.
Issuance of the Tax Sale Certificate: At the conclusion of the sale, the prevailing winning bidder pays the lien amount to the municipality and receives a Tax Sale Certificate (TSC). This certificate gives the holder the legal right to collect the debt from the property owner, including interest and penalties. The purchaser must then record the TSC with the appropriate county clerk within 90 days.

Hurry Up and Wait

During the first two years after purchasing a tax lien, the holder cannot move forward with foreclosure proceedings and take ownership of the property even if the outstanding amounts remain unpaid (though there is an accelerated timeline for strictly defined “abandoned” properties). That is because the law gives the property owner that same length of time (called the redemption period) within which it can pay the full amount owed, including interest and any other costs incurred by the lienholder, such as attorneys’ fees, title searches, and recording fees. During this time, the holder should continue to pay real estate taxes as they come due and owing to avoid a subsequent tax lien destroying their priority. Any additional taxes paid by the holder can be recovered from the property owner as part of redemption.

Even after the redemption period concludes and foreclosure proceedings begin, the property owner can still pay off all delinquencies and extinguish the lien at any time prior to the entry of a judgment of foreclosure or sale of the property at auction.

Foreclosing on the Right of Redemption

Once the two-year redemption period expires, the lienholder can begin foreclosure proceedings to obtain the deed to the property.

The foreclosure process begins with a title search to identify all parties with an interest in the property. This includes the owner, mortgage holders, and any other lienholders. The lienholder then files a foreclosure complaint in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court, naming and serving the complaint on all parties with an interest in the property. If no one redeems or contests the foreclosure, the court will issue a Final Judgment, extinguishing the right of redemption and granting ownership to the certificate holder. The investor must then prepare and record a deed in foreclosure, transferring title to themselves. If the property is occupied, the former lienholder/now owner may need to start a separate eviction proceeding to gain possession.

2024 Law Gives Property Owners the Right To Reclaim Equity

Historically, municipalities that foreclosed on a tax lien and sold a property retained its equity beyond the outstanding amounts owed. Similarly, one of the most attractive aspects of tax lien investing was the ability to acquire all of a property’s equity for a fraction of its total value. According to the New York Times, over $115 million in equity was acquired from New Jersey homeowners through tax sale foreclosures between 2014 and 2021.

However, in its 2023 decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Minnesota law allowing a county to retain surplus proceeds from a tax sale above the amount of unpaid taxes and fees was unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.

To conform New Jersey law to the Tyler decision, the state enacted a law in July 2024 that allows homeowners to reclaim excess equity by requesting their property be sold at a judicial sale or online auction if they make such a request before the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure. Once the property is sold and all debts and costs are paid, the homeowner will receive their remaining equity.

Even with these changes, tax lien purchases can still offer investors a solid return on investment if the homeowner redeems the lien at a favorable interest rate. Furthermore, the holder can “credit bid” their lien amount to obtain the property at the foreclosure auction.

If you are considering investing in tax lien purchases in New Jersey, please contact one of Ansell. Law’s experienced New Jersey real estate attorneys to discuss your questions, concerns, and options.

Ansell.Law Litigators Anthony D’Artiglio and Gabriel Blum Secure Early Dismissal of Lawsuit, Sparing Indiana Clients From Costly Litigation in New York

Ansell Grimm June 18, 2025

Ansell.Law litigators Anthony D’Artiglio and Gabriel Blum recently obtained a dismissal of a lawsuit filed in New York against two Indiana attorneys who were appointed as receivers in an Indiana action to marshal the assets of a Texas-based company, Ready 2 Go Transport Central (“R2G”). Neither the individuals nor the allegations in the complaint had any nexus with New York. Nevertheless, and although the claims relate to and concern receivers’ actions in Indiana, the plaintiffs commenced the action in New York. D’Artiglio and Blum’s aggressive litigation strategy spared the firm’s clients the burden and expense of defending the action in a jurisdiction far away from where they reside and conduct business as attorneys.

The case arose from R2G’s perilous financial condition. Because R2G was on the brink of insolvency, a lawsuit was filed in Hamilton County, Indiana, seeking the appointment of a receiver to marshal and manage the company’s assets and liabilities. The Indiana court appointed two attorneys, Indiana residents whose places of business were in Indiana, to act as receivers.

While that matter remained pending, two investors/owners of R2G filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York, claiming that the receivers acted improperly in denying their claims for compensation. Neither of the plaintiffs who filed suit in New York were parties to the Indiana proceeding.

On behalf of the receivers, D’Artiglio and Blum filed a motion to dismiss the New York action on several grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction over the Indiana-based defendants and lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to an order from the Indiana court giving it exclusive jurisdiction over any action filed against the receivers.

The Supreme Court of New York agreed with D’Artiglio and Blum and granted their motion in its entirety. In its order dismissing the case, the court noted that the court in Indiana had issued an order in which it retained “exclusive jurisdiction and possession of the assets, of whatever kind and wherever situated” of R2GT in receivership. The order also stated that the Hamilton County Superior Court in Indiana “shall retain jurisdiction” over any action filed against the receivers based upon acts or omissions committed in their respective capacities.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the case, as D’Artiglio and Blum argued, and dismissed the matter in its entirety.

The Firm congratulates D’Artiglio and Blum for their hard work in obtaining this favorable result for our clients.

After Sunset of Higher Thresholds, Is Subchapter V Bankruptcy Still a Viable Option for Distressed Small Businesses?

Ansell Grimm May 21, 2025

By Anthony J. D’Artiglio

Historically, struggling small businesses looking to the Bankruptcy Code for salvation rather than liquidation had only one option: a proceeding under Chapter 11. Indeed, Chapter 11 has given countless companies the breathing room needed to reorganize and restructure their debts rather than close up shop for good. However, the costs, complexities, and often glacial pace of Chapter 11 proceedings made it too burdensome or even infeasible for many smaller companies, leaving them no choice but to call it a day and file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition to help them resolve their outstanding obligations.

This shortcoming eventually drew the attention of legislators who, in 2019, established a new section of the Bankruptcy Code – Subchapter V of Chapter 11 – specifically designed to provide smaller businesses with a more viable and streamlined path to restructure their debts while maintaining operations. Unlike traditional Chapter 11 cases, Subchapter V does not require the formation of a creditors’ committee unless ordered by the court for cause. Instead, a single trustee is appointed who generally can move expeditiously to assist with the reorganization process. This omission significantly reduces administrative expenses and speeds up the proceedings. Additionally, Subchapter V cases typically move quicker than traditional Chapter 11 proceedings. The debtor must file a reorganization plan within 90 days of filing for bankruptcy, a much shorter timeframe than the flexible deadlines in conventional Chapter 11 cases. The expedited timeline encourages a quicker resolution and reduces the period in which the business is essentially in limbo.

When proceedings under this new chapter began in February 2020, eligibility was limited to entities with aggregate, noncontingent, liquidated, secured, and unsecured debts of no more than $2,725,625. A debtor must also be engaged in commercial or business activities to seek relief under Subchapter V, with at least 50% of its debts arising from these activities.

Within weeks after the first Subchapter V petition was filed, however, the COVID-19 pandemic struck and spurred the federal government to take action on several fronts to address the crisis, including the passage of the CARES Act. That legislation, passed in March 2020, temporarily raised the debt threshold for Subchapter V eligibility to $7.5 million. Congress extended it several times thereafter, allowing thousands more businesses devastated by lockdowns to avail themselves of this critical new lifeline.

And avail themselves they did. Between February 19, 2020, and September 30, 2023, Subchapter V proceedings accounted for approximately 30% of all Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings in the U.S., according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.

However, time expired on the last extension of the higher $7.5 million threshold on June 21, 2024. As such, the Subchapter V debt limit reverted to $3,024,725.

The result was unsurprising. As reported by Epiq AACER, a bankruptcy analytics firm:

The impact of the lower debt eligibility limit on Subchapter V filings has been substantial. Between January 1 and June 21, 2024, there were 1,153 Subchapter V cases filed — an increase of 66.2 percent from the same period in 2023. Since then, 391 Subchapter V cases have been filed, an increase of only 4.5 percent from last year.

Only time will tell whether increased limits will be restored that helped thousands of small businesses survive and emerge from financial distress. Until and unless that happens, the failure to extend the higher thresholds for Subchapter V eligibility and the more limited availability of these proceedings make it much harder for small businesses to get back on their feet instead of having to liquidate their assets. That said, if you believe your distressed business may qualify under the lower threshold and want to find a way to move forward rather than liquidating, Subchapter V remains an avenue worth exploring.

If you have questions about or want assistance with a Subchapter V bankruptcy, or seek to pursue a Chapter 11 as cost-effectively as possible, please contact Anthony D’Artiglio.

Ansell.Law Attorneys Secure Victory for Firm Client on Administrative Expense Claim in Bankruptcy

Ansell Grimm May 19, 2025

Ansell.Law Shareholder Anthony J. D’Artiglio and Associate Nicole A. Benis successfully secured a victory for a client in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of New Jersey, ensuring the client was awarded an administrative expense claim for a portion of unpaid rent due under a commercial lease over the United States Trustee’s objection. A Landlord of a commercial building in Monmouth County was owed significant monies from the Debtor for rent, late fees and interest on unpaid rent, utilities, trash removal, and maintenance of the commercial property. The Debtor filed a Voluntary Petition for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and failed to pay post-petition rent obligations. Furthermore, the Chapter 7 Trustee did not seek to reject the lease in a timely manner and did not pay any rent obligations post-petition.

Because the Trustee did not reject the lease, the bankruptcy estate continued to benefit from access to the property and the option to sell or assume the lease without paying post-petition rent pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3). This severely disadvantaged the Landlord, being unable to relet the space due to the automatic stay while not collecting any rent for the property.

Ansell argued that, under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, “there shall be allowed administrative expenses…including…the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate.” By providing a benefit to the Trustee and bankruptcy estate (i.e., use and occupancy of the building) without receiving payment in return, the Landlord was entitled to an administrative expense claim to preserve its interests. The attorneys further disputed the Trustee’s argument that 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(1) barred payment of an administrative expense claim, arguing to the Court that such a result is discordant with 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) which requires the Trustee to pay all amounts due and owing under the lease unless and until rejection of the lease.

Following a hotly contested hearing before Chief Bankruptcy Judge Christine M. Gravelle, U.S.B.J., the Court agreed that the Trustee could not avoid the obligations set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) if the Trustee does not timely reject the lease, even if the Trustee later believes that the lease did not provide any benefit to the estate. In short, the Court reasonably agreed that it is not a Landlord’s burden to subsidize a bankruptcy by receiving no payment while a Trustee waits to determine whether to assume or reject a lease.

As a result of D’Artiglio and Benis’ zealous advocacy, the Landlord was awarded a substantial administrative expense claim for post-petition pre-rejection rent and additional rent due and owing according to the lease.

If you have questions about this case or other bankruptcy law matters, please contact Anthony D’Artiglio, Nicole Benis, or your Ansell.Law attorney for assistance.

Ansell.Law Commercial Real Estate Attorney Melanie Scroble Honored With Leadership Award From J.G. Petrucci Company

Ansell Grimm May 16, 2025

On April 3, 2025, Ansell.Law shareholder and commercial real estate attorney Melanie Scroble added to her already impressive list of professional recognitions when she was honored as “Attorney of the Year” by J.G. Petrucci Company, a multi-state developer and owner of commercial, industrial, and residential properties throughout the Northeast.

Scroble received her award at Petrucci’s 2025 Leadership Awards Dinner held at the Palace at Somerset Park. The awards celebrate the achievements of outstanding leaders – attorneys, engineers, brokers, bankers, and others – who made a difference for company projects in 2024.

Presenting Scroble with her award, Joni Elekes, Director of Property Management at Petrucci, described her as “an amazing attorney who is outstanding and inspiring. She is a remarkable professional who expertly handles all of our retail leases.” Elekes continued, “It has been a privilege to work with her as she consistently demonstrates exceptional responsiveness, meticulous attention to detail, and dedication to treat every lease and amendment with the utmost care. And not to mention, she is a bad ass woman!”

Ansell.Law is proud of Scroble’s many accomplishments and congratulates her on this well-deserved honor.

Recent Posts