Tort Claim Does Not Get Administrative Claim Status When Bankrupt Business Is Liquidating

IN RE: RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY CORP. (OCTOBER 31, 2011)

Samuel Roti owned a Holiday Inn just outside Chicago, adjacent to a landfill operated by Congress Development Company. Resource Technology Corporation was under contract with Congress to build and operate a system for collecting gases generated by the landfill. As of September, 2005, Resource was in Chapter 7 bankruptcy and a trustee was appointed to operate the business until liquidation. Days after the trustee was appointed, the landfill gas collection system failed, causing foul odors to be released into the Holiday Inn. Roti filed an administrative claim in the Resource bankruptcy for the damages to his business. The bankruptcy court rejected the claim. Judge Kennelly (N.D. Ill.) agreed. Roti appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Flaum, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court acknowledged that the foul odors that emanated from the property as a result of the failure of the gas collection system could constitute a nuisance -- and a nuisance for which Resource was responsible. That fact makes Roti a creditor of Resource's Chapter 7 estate. But Roti never asked to be a general creditor of the estate. Instead, he sought administrative claim priority status. Generally, administrative claims get priority because they either enhance or preserve the value of the estate and thereby benefit the other creditors. Paying off a tort claim, at least under these circumstances, would not seem to benefit the other creditors. In Reading, the Supreme Court held that tort claims arising from the operation of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy estate should be treated as administrative claims. The Court distinguished Reading, but not on the obvious Chapter 11 versus Chapter 7 basis. Instead, it concluded that the important factor was whether the firm was operating. Here, the trustee was not operating Resource's gas collection system. The bankruptcy estate had no money to repair the system an had minimal revenues there from. The trustee’s mandate was to liquidate the operations as quickly as possible. Under those circumstances, tort liability should not be considered an administrative expense.

United States Trustee Is A "Party In Interest" Under Bankruptcy Code § 1129(d)

IN RE: SOUTH BEACH SECURITIES (May 19, 2010)

South Beach Securities, Inc. is controlled by Leon Greenblatt and was once a registered securities dealer. In the early 2000s, Greenblatt orchestrated a number of financial transactions among South Beach and other companies, including Scattered Corporation, which he controlled in whole or in part. At the time, South Beach's only potential assets were net operating losses. As a result of the transactions, Scattered became South Beach's only creditor. South Beach filed a Chapter 11 petition and submitted a plan of reorganization. The U.S. Trustee opposed confirmation of the plan. The bankruptcy court refused confirmation and dismissed the petition. Judge Lefkow (N.D. Ill.) affirmed. Scattered and South Beach appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum, and Wood affirmed and issued a show-cause order. The Court first addressed the argument that the U.S. Trustee was not even authorized to oppose confirmation of the plan on the ground that its primary purpose was to avoid taxes. Although the Court thought the Internal Revenue Code's guidance is a ”mishmash," it concluded that the Trustee was a "party in interest" under § 1129(d) and authorized to oppose the plan. The Court specifically relied on § 307's grant of authority to the Trustee to "be heard on any issue." On the merits, the Court not only concluded that the proposed plan would not confer the desired tax consequences, it found at least three reasons why the plan could not be confirmed. First, a plan cannot be confirmed if its principal purpose is to avoid taxes. Second, a plan must be rejected if it is not proposed in good faith. Here, the lack of good faith is illustrated by the absence of any outside creditors or any real debt. Finally, a plan cannot be confirmed without the approval of the non-inside owners of at least one class of impaired claims. Because of Scattered's insider status, no such owners exist in this case. The Court concluded that the appeal was frivolous, invited the Trustee to apply for sanctions, and issued an order for the appellants and their lawyers to show cause why they should not be sanctioned.