As one of the nation’s premier bankruptcy venues, the Eastern District of Virginia (“EDVA”) has attracted some of the largest and most complex corporate bankruptcies. While companies file chapter 11 bankruptcies in the EDVA for many reasons—experienced judges, well-established legal precedent, a robust bankruptcy bar and local rules, and an expeditious docket (dubbed the “Rocket Docket”)—national law firms are also cognizant that EDVA courts have generally approved their fees, even when they exceed prevailing geographic market rates.

National Rates in the EDVA

In June 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Taggart v. Lorenzen, through which it turned to general standards governing contempt outside of bankruptcy in holding a creditor may not be found in contempt for its failure to comply with a discharge injunction when a fair ground of doubt exists as to whether the creditor’s actions are wrongful. 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1799–1804 (2019).

On Aug 30, 2021, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appellate court to confirm that claims arising against a debtor following confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan, but prior to the plan’s effective date, are subject to discharge. This ruling serves as a strong reminder for all creditors and counterparties of a bankrupt entity to stay vigilant through the “effective date” of a Chapter 11 plan, and to strictly adhere to any administrative claims bar date established in a bankruptcy case.

Late in the evening on Feb. 23, 2021, the department store chain Belk Inc. and 17 affiliates filed prepackaged bankruptcy cases in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. In addition to filing first-day motions, Belk also filed its disclosure statement and plan of reorganization, which already had been solicited and accepted by the vast majority of those entitled to vote.

In re Ultra Petroleum Corp. provides substantial support for the allowance of make-whole amounts pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(2) and that such are neither interest, unmatured interest nor the economic equivalent of unmatured interest. In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., No. 16-03272, 2020 WL 6276712, *3-*4 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2020). The case also clarifies that bankruptcy courts may not permit a solvent debtor to ignore its contractual obligations to unimpaired classes of unsecured creditors.

Case Background

As a result of the economic fallout of COVID-19, more bankruptcies are on the horizon, especially as government aid programs expire and involuntary or voluntary moratoriums on creditor action come to an end. [1] Creditors should be aware and prepared to avoid potential claims for alleged violation of the discharge injunction under the Bankruptcy Code and related orders.

Recent emergency motions from Modell’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“Modell’s) and Pier 1 Imports, Inc. (“Pier 1”) to put their chapter 11 cases on ice may signal a growing trend. As the economic consequences of efforts to contain and respond to COVID-19 infections render deal-making difficult or impossible, what were the best-laid plans a few weeks ago often no longer make sense.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever