On September 15, President Biden announced a tentative deal with unions representing tens of thousands of railroad workers that helped narrowly avoid a strike that threatened to devastate the country’s delicate supply chains that have been strained since the beginning of the pandemic. Now the country awaits the outcome of the union member votes (which we may not know until mid-November), but even if the members approve the deal, the retail sector will still face empty shelves, job vacancies and surging inflation.
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
The world economy is experiencing the perfect storm of inflation, interest rate increases, supply chain disruption, and a potential global recession. These conditions exert pressure on trading partners who may have nowhere to turn but each other to relieve pressure. Contract parties are experiencing requests for price increases, extended payment terms, and cancellation of some or all orders. How a contract party addresses these issues depends on the business leverage between the parties and the importance of the business relationship.
On September 27, 2022, Phoenix Services Topco LLC, a steel mill service provider with approximately 2,600 employees, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 22-10906). The company reports $500 million to $1 billion in both assets and liabilities.
On Sept. 19, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered an order1 adopting the report and recommendation, or R&R, of the chief bankruptcy judge2 approving the fee applications of three law firms in the retail group bankruptcy cases, including the requested national rates.
Federal district courts, with the consent of the parties, are authorized by statute to refer "civil matter[s]" to magistrate judges for the purpose of conducting all proceedings and entering a judgment in the litigation. In the case of an appeal to a district court from a bankruptcy court, however, this statutory authority arguably conflicts with another statutory provision dictating that appeals from a bankruptcy court order or judgment be heard by a "district court" or a "bankruptcy appellate panel." This apparent conflict was recently addressed by the U.S.
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
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that in a solvent debtor case, unsecured creditors have an equitable right to postpetition interest at the applicable contractual or state law rate in order to be deemed unimpaired.
On September 22, 2022, Compute North Holdings, Inc. and certain affiliates filed bankruptcy in the Southern District of Texas in Houston. The company describes itself as “a leader in data centers, focused on delivering sustainable, cost-effective infrastructure for customers in the blockchain, cryptocurrency mining and distributed computing space.” SeeDeclaration of Harold Coulby, Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer of the Debtors (Doc. 22).
On September 19, 2022, a panel of three appellate judges for the 3rd Circuit heard oral argument in a closely-watched case, In re LTL Management LLC, Case No. 22-2003.