  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
There has been a steady stream of cases dealing with claims in solvent cases. In general, the cases involve claims that would probably be disallowed in an insolvent case but are valid under state law. The courts have generally allowed the claims saying, in effect, that state law governs unless section 502(b) specifically disallows, and that there is little or no place for equitable distribution doctrines to apply in solvent cases where creditors will be paid in full and that such doctrines have no application to creditor versus equity issues. See Gencarelli v. UPS Capital Business Credit, 501 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (even if prepayment penalty is not allowable to secured creditor under 506(b) because unreasonable, it is allowed as an unsecured claim because it is valid under state law and there is no reason to put the secured creditor in a worse position than an unsecured creditor); In re Dow Corning Corp., 456 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2006) (in solvent case, creditors get default interest at the contract rate and attorneys fees absent compelling equitable circumstances; any other result would violate fair and equitable rule).
There are few reported cases on estimation. A recent example was a case where the nondebtor obtained a $38MM verdict which was reversed on appeal, and the court ordered estimation on the ground that it was necessary to expedite the case, a retrial would involve delay, and the claim had to be estimated to determine the feasibility of the plan. The court also addressed procedures. In re Lionel L.L.C., 2007 WL 2261539 (Bk. S.D.N.Y. 2007). See also In re FV Steel & Wire Co., 372 B.R. 446 (Bk. E.D. Wis. 2007) (discussing estimation procedures).
Courts continue to struggle with landlord cap issues. See In re El Toro Materials Co., 504 F. 3d 978 (9th Cir. 2007) (cap is not applicable to landlord's claim against tenant who dumped 1,000 tons of wet clay "goo," equipment and other materials after rejecting lease and refused to remove; court holds cap is not applicable to collateral damage; case is ambiguous on application to ordinary lease obligations to leave premises broom clean). Compare In re Foamex Intl, Inc., 368 B.R. 383 (Bk. D. Del 2007) (landlord's claim for breach of repair and maintenance covenant was not separate from general termination damages and was within cap). See also In re Connectix Corp., 372 B.R. 488 (Bk. N.D. Cal. 2007) (15% cap refers to 15% of time remaining on lease and not 15% of rent remaining due under lease; court notes split of authority); In re ProCare Automotive Service Solutions, LLC, 359 B.R. 653 (Bk. N.D. Ohio 2007)(cap applies even though landlord had liquidated claim under prepetition judgment); 1500 Mineral Spring Asso., LP v. Gencarelli, 353 B.R. 771 (D.R.I. 2007) (cap applies in surplus case even though it creates windfall for solvent debtor); In re Titus & McConomy, LLP, 2007 WL 2800397 (Bk. W.D. Pa. 2007) (no postpetition interest paid on landlord's claim; general discussion of cap issues).
Who is a known creditor entitled to notice of the bar date? Courts have frequently said that the test is whether the claim appears from a reasonable examination of the debtor's books and records and frequently hold tort claims are not known unless suit has been filed. In re
