Opinion ID: 206337
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CAM Expenses

Text: Dika-Ward's claim for CAM expenses is a component of its lease rejection damages claim. For that reason, this claim may be recharacterized on remand to the Bankruptcy Court. However, whether the Lease and Sublease Agreement is deemed a structured financing or a true lease, Montgomery Ward has no CAM liability under the Jolward II Claim. If on remand the Bankruptcy Court determines that the Lease and Sublease Agreement is a structured financing, Dika-Ward's only remedy for an alleged breach of that structured financing would be to foreclose on the Department Store and the Land. Dika-Ward has already obtained this remedy: it has foreclosed on the Mortgage, and Dika-Jefferson acquired Montgomery Ward's interest in the Land. If the Bankruptcy Court finds that the Lease and Sublease Agreement is a true lease, then Dika-Ward's claim for CAM expenses also fails because, as found by the Bankruptcy Court, Dika-Ward has failed to establish that the Ward II Debtor is liable for any CAM expenses. Dika-Ward alleged that Montgomery Ward owes $3.2 million in CAM expenses and that, [t]o the extent Jolward is found to be liable for any such amount, it possesses a claim against the Debtor. Dika-Ward has never alleged or introduced any evidence that Jolward has been found liable for any CAM expenses, and in any event the Ward II Stipulation released Montgomery Ward's CAM liabilities.