Is there any downside to a debtor filing a motion to estimate a claim? Or, is an estimation motion simply procedural in nature? As the debtors recently discovered in In re SC SJ Holdings LLC, a motion to estimate a claim before a bankruptcy court may not always lead to a significantly reduced claim, and may impact plan confirmation.

The Facts

Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, most retail bankruptcy cases involved at least some effort to maximize value by selling real estate holdings. The Bon Ton Stores, Forever 21, Sears, and Toys ‘R’ Us cases, among others, are perfect examples. These cases have, for the most part, achieved such sales under section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code with minimal resistance, typically on expedited time-frames.

The retail sky is falling. At least that is how it appears from recent and unprecedented number of retailers filing for bankruptcy. From iconic stores such as Sears and Toys ‘R’ Us, to department stores such as Bon Ton, to mall stores including Brookstone, The Rockport Company, Nine West, among others. The reasons given for such filings vary as much as their products but one theme seems to be constant — the inability of retailers to maintain “brick and mortar” operating expenses in the era of online shopping.

The Bankruptcy Code gives special protections to licensees of intellectual property when a debtor, as licensor, seeks to reject the license. However, the Bankruptcy Code does not include trademarks in its definition of “intellectual property.” So, are licensees of trademarks given any protection when debtors reject trademark licenses? If the Supreme Court grants a recent petition for writ of certiorari, we may get an answer.

As they say, what one hand giveth, the other hand taketh. In its recent decision in In re MPM Silicones, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed make-whole premiums and cramdown rates of interest (among other issues not addressed here), issuing rulings that will impact creditors and debtors alike.

Do a lessee’s possessory interests in real property survive a “free and clear” sale of the property under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code? In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said “no,” holding that section 365(h) did not protect the interest of the lessee in the context of a section 363 sale when there had been no prior formal rejection of the lease under section 365.

Recently, the bankruptcy court presiding over the Energy Futures chapter 11 case issued an opinion analyzing the interplay between an intercreditor agreement’s distribution waterfall and payments to be made under the debtors’ multi-step reorganization plan. The court rejected a secured creditor’s argument that the intercreditor agreement’s distribution waterfall was triggered by one step of that reorganization.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued is highly awaited ruling in Czyzewski et al. v. Jevic Holding Corp. et al. The Jevic case presented the question whether bankruptcy courts may approve non-consensual structured dismissals that vary the distribution scheme established by the Bankruptcy Code.

In a recent decision in In re Packaging Systems, LLC, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that a lender that held a “super-priority” administrative expense claim under section 364(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code was still entitled to its super-priority status even after the debtor’s case converted to chapter 7.

A recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware further puts into doubt so-called bankruptcy blocking tactics. And the opinion from In re Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, No. 16-11247, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 2241 (Bankr. D. Del.