Readers familiar with contract law undoubtedly know the “mailbox rule,” that an offer is accepted the moment a document goes in the mail.1 The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (the “BAP”) recently dealt with its own variant of the mailbox rule: does the issuance of a check constitute a transfer of estate assets on the date the check is delivered or on the date it is honored?

In so holding, the Court sanctioned the lender’s motive of purchasing claims to block the plan for the purpose of protecting its own existing claim. The Court held that the relevant bad faith inquiry under 11 USC § 1126(e) requires a motive which is ulterior to the purpose of protecting a creditor’s economic interest in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Background

The lender held a senior lien fully secured by the debtor’s real property. The debtor’s proposed “cramdown” plan sought to extend and modify the terms of the mortgage without the lender’s consent.

A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision provides insight into “bad faith” claims-buying activity; specifically whether a creditor’s purchase of claims for the express purpose of blocking plan confirmation is permissible. In In re Fagerdala USA-Lompoc, Inc., the Court found it was—the secured creditor did not act in bad faith when it purchased a subset of all general unsecured claims and voted those claims against confirmation because it was acting to further its own economic interest as a creditor, without some extrinsic ulterior motive.

Bankruptcy courts have authority to hold in civil contempt one who refuses to comply with a bankruptcy court order, including incarceration and/or daily fines until the offender complies.[1] But when does civil contempt[2] cross into criminal contempt, which is punitive and outside

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded an Oregon bankruptcy court’s order designating recently acquired claims of a secured creditor for bad faith, holding that a bad faith finding requires “something more.” Specifically, the Court found that a bankruptcy court may not designate claims for bad faith simply because (1) a creditor offers to purchase only a subset of available claims in order to block a plan of reorganization, and/or (2) blocking the plan will adversely impact the remaining creditors.Pacific Western Bank, et al. v.

When it comes to voting on a plan, Section 1126(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a bankruptcy court may designate (or disallow) the votes of any entity whose vote to accept or reject was not made in “good faith” (a term that is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code).

Weil Summer Associate David Rybak contributed to this post

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals highlights an existing circuit split regarding appellate standing.[1]

The appellate courts are usually the last stop for parties in business bankruptcy cases. The courts issued at least three provocative, if not questionable, decisions in the past six months. Their decisions have not only created uncertainty, but will also generate further litigation over reorganization plan manipulation, arbitration of routine bankruptcy disputes and the treatment of trademark licenses in reorganization cases. Each decision apparently disposes of routine issues in business cases. A closer look at each case, though, reveals the sad truth: they are anything but routine.

Summary