In a recent order entered in In re SemCrude, L.P., Case No. 08-11525, the Delaware bankruptcy court (1) clarified the application of Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(9) to creditors’ priority claims arising from the delivery of goods in the 20 days before a bankruptcy filing and (2) amended a previously entered procedures order to allow for the resolution of disputed “Twenty Day Claims” on their merits.

For a Throwback Thursday, we often go way back, to cases establishing first principles. This time, however, we travel not so far back, but still to a bygone era, the early 80’s. It was a time when the Bankruptcy Code was still new, and judges could interpret it without the weight of much practice and precedent. Often, these cases present the starting point for familiar interpretations that continued to develop in later years, but other times it’s surprising to see a new interpretive opening that, years later, is not thoroughly explored.

As part of the 2005 revisions of the Bankruptcy Code, Congress greatly enhanced the priority of claims asserted by suppliers of goods to debtors in the 20-day period immediately prior to a debtor’s bankruptcy filing by enacting new section 503(b)(9). This new provision raises several interesting issues, some of which were addressed by two recent cases examining the question of when such claims are to be paid.

The Language of Section 503(b)(9)

Remember Sabena, the ill-fated Belgian airline that declared bankruptcy in 2001? Well, to quote Ford Madox Ford, this is the saddest story I have ever heard.

Tolstoy warned that “if you look for perfection, you’ll never be content”; but Tolstoy wasn’t a bankruptcy lawyer. In the world of secured lending, perfection is paramount. A secured lender that has not properly perfected its lien can lose its collateral and end up with unsecured status if its borrower files bankruptcy.

It is a harrowing scenario for any seller of goods: a trading-partner files for bankruptcy and leaves the seller with thousands, even millions of dollars in unpaid invoices. In many instances, some of these goods were delivered only days before the bankruptcy filing. While a creditor may be able to assert reclamation rights, those rights are often difficult to enforce in bankruptcy and may be subordinate to the interests of an all assets lender.

With the latest wave of bankruptcies sweeping the aviation and airline industries, you will find bankers and lawyers sweating over the priority and perfection of their aircraft liens. These bankruptcies seem to have a different character when contrasted with the bankruptcies of 2002 through 2004. Many of the 2008 bankruptcies are operational shut-downs and liquidations rather than restructurings. That means that the status of creditors (as secured or unsecured) is going to become acutely relevant and will determine how much the bankruptcy affects the creditor's financial outcome.

More than a year and a half has passed since the Bankruptcy Code was significantly revised pursuant to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) which became effective (with some exceptions) on October 17, 2005. While the full impact of BAPCPA will not be fully realized for years to come, it is already apparent that trade creditors stand to benefit significantly as a result of these amendments.

Expanded Administrative Expense and Reclamation Rights

The Supreme Court of Missouri recently held that a trial court abused its discretion by certifying an overly broad class with a class representative whose claims against the debt collector defendant were not typical of the class.

It always amazes me when, after more than a half-century of Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) jurisprudence, an issue one thinks would arise quite commonly appears never to have been decided in a reported case. Such an issue was recently decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an adversary proceeding in the Pettit Oil Co. Chapter 7 case.[1]