In a previous blog post from June 2022, we discussed the Tenth Circuit’s post-Sigel decision in John Q. Hammons Fall 2006 LLC v. U.S. Trustee (In re John Q. Hammons Fall 2006 LLC), 15 F.4th 1011 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 2021), which held that the government must pay a refund to a Chapter 11 debtor based on what the debtor would have paid over the same time were the case in a Bankruptcy Administrator district.

Two recent decisions from circuit courts of appeal – the Fifth and Ninth – have addressed a question that does not arise often: in a solvent-debtor chapter 11 case, is the debtor required to pay post-petition interest (commonly referred to as “pendency interest”) to unsecured creditors in order to render such claims unimpaired? And, if so, what is the applicable rate of interest to use? Additionally, a subsequent decision from the Second Circuit, while not ultimately reaching the issue, favorably cited the recent Fifth and Ninth Circuit decisions.

The Bankruptcy Protector

On June 6, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (U.S. June 6, 2022) that the increase in fees payable to the U.S. Trustee system in 2018 violated the uniformity aspect of the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution because it was not immediately applicable in the two states with Bankruptcy Administrators rather than U.S. Trustees.

In a recent decision by the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the court held that a chapter 7 trustee could not sell an LLC membership interest pursuant to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code because of a transfer restriction within the LLC operating agreement. Malloy v. Trak-1 Technology Inc.(In re Kramer), No. 21-005, 2022 WL 17176411 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. Nov. 23, 2022).

The Bankruptcy Protector

On August 18, 2022, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana, in In re BWGS, LLC, No. 19-01487-JMC-7A, 2022 WL 3568045 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. Aug. 18, 2022), narrowly interpreted the safe harbor provision in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code by refusing to dismiss a lawsuit against a guarantor whose liability was eliminated by the debtor’s payment to the bank that held the guarantee.

Overview on Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code is a safe harbor provision that establishes that a trustee or debtor-in-possession may not avoid a transfer “by or to... a financial institution.. in connection with a securities contract” other than under an intentional fraudulent conveyance theory. On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit in Note Holders v.

Delaware District Judge Leonard P. Stark has seemingly split with the Second Circuit and held that the safe harbor in Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not bar fraudulent transfer claims brought on behalf of creditors under state law, ratifying a June 2016 opinion from Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross.

In 2007, Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, LP dba Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia (“Plaintiff”) secured a gaming license from Pennsylvania for $50,000,000 with the understanding that it open its casino business within one year. Plaintiff failed to do so and, despite a number of extensions, Pennsylvania cancelled and revoked the gaming license in December 2010. Without a gaming license, Plaintiff found itself in chapter 11 by spring of 2014.

The Bankruptcy Protector

Back in September, the Bankruptcy Protector announced that was introducing a new periodic series: theJevic Files. As promised, we have published intermittent updates identifying cases where Jevic priority skipping issues are raised and adjudicated.

In this post, we attempt to provide a succinct summary of all cases decided post-Jevic.

How Courts Are Applying Jevic

In In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., 2019 WL 6767004 (6th Cir. Ct. App.), the United States Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the bankruptcy court for further consideration, the determination that the bankruptcy court held exclusive and unlimited jurisdiction and therefore could enjoin FERC from taking action regarding energy contracts because under the BJR they were financially burdensome on FES and as such could be rejected.

Facts