On October 14, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a long-awaited ruling on whether Ultra Petroleum Corp.

In Short

The Situation: Courts have disagreed over whether a make-whole premium triggered by a borrower's bankruptcy filing must be disallowed as unmatured interest. They have also disputed whether the "solvent-debtor exception" requiring the payment of postpetition interest to unimpaired unsecured creditors of a solvent debtor survived the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code. Finally, courts have split on what rate of postpetition interest unimpaired unsecured creditors of a solvent debtor are entitled to receive.

In Short

The Situation: Bankruptcy courts have split on what rate of post-petition interest unimpaired creditors of a solvent debtor are entitled to receive. Bankruptcy courts have variously ruled that such creditors were entitled to the contractual rate of interest, interest at the federal judgment rate (about the rate on a one-year Treasury bill) as of the bankruptcy petition date, or an equitable rate. Another possibility is that no interest is payable at all.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

As discussed in previousposts, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”) was signed into law on December 27, 2020, largely to address the harsh economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Part 2: Amendments Affecting Mortgage Lenders and Landlords

As discussed in a previous post, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”), which was enacted on December 27, 2020 in response to the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, amended numerous provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. This post discusses amendments specifically affecting landlords.

On December 27, 2020, in response to the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and to supplement the CARES Act enacted in March 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”) was enacted. In addition to providing $900 billion in pandemic relief, the Act benefits both debtors and creditors by temporarily modifying the following sections of the Bankruptcy Code, which may be of particular interest to creditors:

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?