Equitable concepts and considerations frequently play a significant role in disputes tried before a bankruptcy court. Moreover, such litigation is sometimes conducted on a somewhat less formal basis than that which might occur in other venues. As a result, litigants may view this as an opportunity to introduce evidence and arguments that might otherwise not be considered outside of a court of equity. Such equitable considerations can, on occasion, impact the predictability of a particular outcome.
Recently, however, a New York bankruptcy court refused to insert these equitable concepts into an otherwise straightforward contract dispute, much to the chagrin of the debtor, in In re New York Skyline, 2013 Bankr. 106840/11 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2013). In New York Skyline, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the Southern District of New York ruled that the debtor would be strictly held to the terms of its agreement, notwithstanding the fact that it required the calculation of payments due thereunder in a manner that was not the most accurate or arguably, the most reasonable.
