Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Bankruptcy StrategistFeaturesBankruptcyLitigation

Fifth Circuit Follows Ninth Circuit, Allows Post-Bankruptcy Contract Rate Interest In Solvent Debtor Case

By Michael L. Cook
November 01, 2022

"… [B]ecause Congress has not clearly abrogated the solvent-debtor exception," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a reorganized solvent debtor had to "pay what it promised now that it is financially capable." In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 2022 WL 8025329, *1, (5th Cir. Oct. 14, 2022) (2-1). Moreover, "given [the debtor's ] solvency, post-petition interest is to be calculated according to the agreed-upon … contractual default rate …," not the "much lower Federal Judgment Rate …," held the court. Id. This $387 million win for creditors follows the similar recent $200 million creditor victory in the Ninth Circuit. In re PG&E Corporation, 46 F. 4th 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2022) (2-1) ("Under the long-standing 'solvent debtor' exception," unsecured creditors have "equitable right to receive post-petition interest at … contractual or default state law rate, subject to any other equitable consideration; "because of limited" record, case remanded to bankruptcy court with "presumption" of "contractual or default post-petition interest.")

Relevance

"No circuit court [had] addressed the issue [i.e. rate of post-petition interest to unimpaired unsecured creditors], and bankruptcy courts have reached different conclusions in the rare solvent debtor case," noted the Ninth Circuit on August 29, 2002, in the PG&E case, 46 F. 4th at 1052, a decision not mentioned by the Fifth Circuit in Ultra. And "this is not the ordinary case," said the Fifth Circuit. 22 WL 8025329, at *8. Some lower courts, for example, had held that post-petition interest should be calculated at the lower federal judgment rate, not the contractual default rate. In re the Hertz Corp, 647 B.R. 781, 800-01 (Bankr. D. Del. 2021). See, also, In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 540 B.R. 109, 124 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015) (interest based on "equitable principles" at rate court "deems appropriate.")

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.