  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
* In re Jointly Administered Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 381 B.R. 804 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Feb. 2008) (Funk, J.)
To everything there is a season, and the creditors' season for amending their proofs of claims was before a plan-defined bar date.66 Early in the case, the court granted the debtors' motion to reject certain unexpired leases. The rejection order required all rejected landlords to file (or to amend) proofs of claim for the "rejection damages" within 30 days of to-bedetermined "rejection bar date." That bar date was set by the terms of the debtors' confirmed plan several months later. Before the plan was confirmed, however, the debtors objected to two landlords' claims, and the court sustained those objections, reducing the landlords' claimed amounts considerably.
The debtors' plan of reorganization proposed to pay unsecured creditors by issuing new common stock in full satisfaction of those claims. The former landlords were explicitly treated in the plan as unsecured creditors to be paid with the debtors' new common stock. Despite having received disclosure statements and having an opportunity to object, the landlords did nothing. The plan was confirmed and became effective. Under the terms of the plan, the debtors issued new stock to the landlords in full satisfaction of their reduced claims. Two weeks after the now-defined "rejection bar date," the landlords sought to amend their proofs of claims to include "rejection damages." The debtors objected, and the court once again sustained the objections. In its opinion, the court discussed the res judicata effect of a confirmed plan but did not explicitly rule that the amended claims were barred as res judicata. Instead, the court concluded that the landlords had the opportunity to act (several times, in fact) but failed to do so. Accordingly, the debtors' objections to the landlords' claim amendments were sustained.
* New Seabury Co., L.P. v. New Seabury Properties, L.L.C. (In re New Seabury Co., L.P.), 374 B.R. 446 (Bankr. D. Mass. Aug. 2007) (Hillman, J.)
Defendant was liable for violating a stipulation accepted by the bankruptcy court prior to confirmation. The plaintiff-debtor's case was commenced in 1997, and the defendant secured creditor's plan of reorganization was confirmed in 1998 after the court accepted a stipulation between the parties resolving ongoing disputes. As part of the stipulation, the debtor transferred all of its assets to the defendant with the exception of a real estate brokerage business. The brokerage business was to stay on the defendant's property (received from the debtor) and would be able to post signs under the terms agreed upon in the stipulation. Several years after confirmation, the defendant unilaterally changed its policy for allowing the debtor to post signs on its property. The debtor filed this adversary proceeding with the bankruptcy court. Without addressing jurisdiction, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the debtor on claims of breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, civil contempt, and the like.
66
See id. at 808 (quoting Holstein v. Brill, 987 F.2d 1268, 1270-71 (7th Cir. 1993)). Chapter 11 Open Forum 74
