Create an Account or Login to Existing Account
7-Day Free Trial
HTML Document View
Full title: Omnibus Reply to Objections to Motion for Order (i) Approving Omnibus Claim Objection Procedures and (ii) Finally Resolving Interest Rate Applicable to Certain Claims (related document(s):557 Generic Motion). Filed by John Cornwell (Ong, Jay) (Entered: 06/01/2021)
Document posted on May 31, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 15 pages and 0 tables.
Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)
However, Rider 1 to the Shareholder Settlement replaces the foregoing provision with the following language: "Holders of allowed Seller Note Claims and general unsecured claims are unimpaired by the Debtors' Plan," along with a companion footnote providing that: Certain parties in interest believe that holders of allowed seller note and other general unsecured claims should receive interest at their respective applicable contract rates; other parties in interest believe that the holders of allowed seller note and other general unsecured claims should receive interest at the applicable federal judgment rate.The Trustee’s request is based on: (i) the prior understandings of the (then prospective) Trustee and other parties at the time of the Confirmation Hearing; (ii) the equity and fairness of applying a single interest rate applicable to all general unsecured claims (including unsecured noteholder claims); (iii) efficiency, timing and material savings of costs and delays; (iv) considerations of res judicata applicable to the Plan, which arguably negate any post-petition interest payable to general unsecured claims, considering that the Plan does not presume the payment of any interest on account of such claims, and where such provision and potential issue may not now be re-litigated.James Kelly, David Fernandez, Glenn Peterman and Willie Janik (collectively, the “Patterson Noteholders”) objected to the Motion asserting that: (i) unimpaired status under the Plan entitles Seller Note holders to post-petition interest at contractual rates; (ii) under Ultra Petroleum, an opinion promulgated by this Court, the solvent debtor exception requires that post-petition interest be paid to unsecured creditors at contractual rates (before any surplus is paid to equity interest holders); and (iii) while paying claims at contractual rates may be more burdensome, those considerations do not override the equitable interests of the objecting creditors.Accordingly, the Trustee respectfully contends that the sole issue presented by the Objections and left open under the Plan for this Court is whether the “unimpaired” designation under the Plan entitles unsecured creditors to post-petition interest, and if so, whether such interest should or must be paid at their contractual rates, at the federal judgment rate, or at some other equitable rate. Very recently, on May 20, 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the PG&E bankruptcy case entered its Order Affirming Bankruptcy Court's Rulings on Post-Petition Interest, which addresses the material issue presented by the Motion and Objections to this Court: What rate should apply where a confirmed Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan provides for unimpaired treatment to general unsecured claims but is silent as to what corresponding rate should apply, if any, to the calculation of post-petition unpaid interest payable on account of such claims?
List of Tables
Document ContentsIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In re: § § Jointly Administered VETERINARY CARE, INC. d/b/a § VITALPET, et al., § Case No. 19-35736 § (Chapter 11) Debtors. § TRUSTEE'S OMNIBUS REPLY TO OBJECTIONS TO MOTION FOR ORDER (I) APPROVING OMNIBUS CLAIM OBJECTION PROCEDURES AND (II) FINALLY RESOLVING INTEREST RATE APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN CLAIMS TO THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER M. LOPEZ, U. S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE: COMES NOW John D. Cornwell, Trustee ("Trustee") of the VitalPet Liquidating Trust ("Liquidating Trust") in the above styled and numbered chapter 11 bankruptcy case (the "Bankruptcy Case"), and files this, his Omnibus Reply (this “Reply”) to Objections to Motion for Order (i) Approving Omnibus Claim Objection Procedures and (ii) Finally Resolving Interest Rate Applicable to Certain Claims [Docket No. 557] (the "Motion")1, respectfully stating as follows: I. SUMMARY OF MOTION AND OBJECTIONS 1. As detailed in the Motion, the Trustee presides over the Liquidating Trust established pursuant to the Plan and Trust Agreement approved by this Court’s entry of the Confirmation Order on December 17, 2020. See Motion, at ¶¶ 7-9. 2. On April 28, 2021, the Trustee filed the Motion under which the requests for relief are divided into two (2) basic categories. The first of these is the Trustee’s request for approval of procedures proposed to govern the Trustee’s assertion of omnibus objections to claims and the administration of such objections, in addition and in supplement to the procedures 1 Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein have those same definitions as are set forth in the Motion.
1set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 3007. Specifically, the Motion seeks authorization to assert under omnibus objections the Additional Objection Grounds, as follows: (a) claims that have been paid by or assumed by a third party, such as but not limited to Destination Pet, the purchaser of substantially all of the Debtor’s operating assets; (b) claims that fail to specify the asserted claim amount (or only list the claim amount as “unliquidated”); (c) claims and/or interests that conflict with the Debtors' books and records; and (d) claims that fail to sufficiently specify the basis for the claim or provide sufficient supporting documentation. See Motion, at ¶¶ 18-22. 3. As of the date of filing of this Reply, no objection has been asserted to the foregoing relief requested under the Motion. 4. Secondly, the Motion seeks this Court’s interpretation and construction of its Confirmation Order and the Plan and Shareholder Settlement approved thereby, with respect to the applicable rate for calculating post-petition interest payable on account of unimpaired general unsecured claims under the Plan. The settlement, as filed and approved by this Court, recites that, "Holders of Seller Note claims and allowed general unsecured claims shall receive interest on account of their allowed claims at the applicable federal judgment rate." See Motion, at ¶ 12; Shareholder Settlement, at p. 6. However, Rider 1 to the Shareholder Settlement replaces the foregoing provision with the following language: "Holders of allowed Seller Note Claims and general unsecured claims are unimpaired by the Debtors' Plan," along with a companion footnote providing that: Certain parties in interest believe that holders of allowed seller note and other general unsecured claims should receive interest at their respective applicable contract rates; other parties in interest believe that the holders of allowed seller note and other general unsecured claims should receive interest at the applicable federal judgment rate. The appropriate interest rate shall be determined by the Court at the confirmation hearing. Shareholder Settlement, Rider 1, at footnote 3.
25. The Plan itself does not presume that general unsecured claims, despite being unimpaired, are entitled to any post-petition interest, but instead provides that "[t]he appropriateness of, and any applicable interest rate, shall be determined by the Bankruptcy Court at the Confirmation Hearing." Plan, at p. 24, 25. 6. As further detailed in the Motion, however, no party raised any interest rate issue or other objection to the Plan at the Confirmation Hearing; and as a result, no controversy was presented to the Court regarding the applicable interest rate, if any, for post-petition interest that may be payable to unsecured creditors under the Plan. See Motion at ¶¶ 14, 25. 7. As a result, the Trustee filed the Motion for clarification and suggested that the Court construe the Plan to require the payment of post-petition, unpaid interest on account of general unsecured claims at the federal judgment rate applicable on the date of the Confirmation Hearing (.1%). The Trustee’s request is based on: (i) the prior understandings of the (then prospective) Trustee and other parties at the time of the Confirmation Hearing; (ii) the equity and fairness of applying a single interest rate applicable to all general unsecured claims (including unsecured noteholder claims); (iii) efficiency, timing and material savings of costs and delays; (iv) considerations of res judicata applicable to the Plan, which arguably negate any post-petition interest payable to general unsecured claims, considering that the Plan does not presume the payment of any interest on account of such claims, and where such provision and potential issue may not now be re-litigated. See Motion, at ¶¶ 27-34.2 8. In addition, the Trustee in the Motion proposes the federal post-judgment interest rate for unpaid post-petition interest applicable to unsecured claims because, as discussed more 2 The Motion also proposes to allow the Trustee to assert as an Additional Objection Ground under any omnibus objections any appropriate rate of any post-petition interest that this Court determines to be applicable to unsecured claims under the Plan, but solely in the event that this Court determines that such additional objections are required in order to apply any such rate determination by this Court to such claims. Id., at ¶ 36.
3fully below, federal courts have generally held that the federal post-judgment rate is the rate appropriate to ensure that claimants receive the present value of their claims. Id., at ¶ 35 (citing Dropbox v. Thru, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-1958-G, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179769 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2018)). 9. Four (4) responses have been filed to the Motion by certain holders of Seller Notes contesting the proposed post-petition interest rate applicable to payment of each noteholders’ specific claims (collectively, the “Objections”). On May 20, 2021, Dr. James Kelly filed a one-page letter Objection [Docket No. 563] (“Initial Kelly Objection”) alleging: (i) apparent equitable considerations based on the assertion that the holders of Seller Notes were responsible for building the Debtors’ businesses that were sold in this Bankruptcy Case to Destination Pet for $43 million, and “by design” the holders of Seller Notes generally sold their practices to the Debtors at or near their retirement ages; (ii) that utilizing the federal post-judgment rate would “transfer” in excess of $750,000 from the holders of Seller notes to equity interest holders; and (iii) that it was represented to Mr. Fuqua (counsel to the Committee), “that the Debtor had agreed to contractual rates when we were declared unimpaired,” and that Mr. Fuqua would testify accordingly. 10. On May 27, 2021, the Trustee received an objection by Protect VitalPet, LLC and Rescue VitalPet, LLC (collectively, the “Claim Purchasers”), which are entities who acquired two Seller Notes from the original holders.3 One of these purchased notes was acquired from Dr. James Kelly. To the extent relevant, the Claim Purchasers’ Objection asserts a bizarre and facially invalid argument that the Plan plainly provides for the alleged agreement and understanding that unsecured claims would receive post-petition interest at the contractual rate, 3 As of the date of filing of this Reply, the Claim Purchaser’s Objection does not yet appear on the official docket of this Bankruptcy Case but the trustee acknowledges receipt of service of that objection.
4along with an inexplicable allegation that the Trustee is “sua sponte” creating a dispute and issue where none exists. See Claim Purchasers’ Objection, at ¶¶ 16, 18-22. In support of these baseless arguments, the Claim Purchasers’ Objection incredibly casts aspersions alleging, “The Trustee’s reliance on ‘side deals and riders ‘…to overlook the intent of the Amended Plan.” Id., at ¶ 30. 11. In reality, the record of the Plan confirmation proceedings establish that the terms of the Plan were duly noticed on all parties in interest, including the Shareholder Settlement expressly noticed as a component of the Court approved Plan Supplement. To the contrary, Rider 1 was clearly not the product of an improper side deal, but was in fact required by, and formulated with the official Committee of unsecured creditors prior to the time that the Trustee was appointed. 12. The Claim Purchasers’ Objection otherwise: (i) invalidly asserts that the classification of Seller Note claims as “unimpaired” means that the holders are entitled to post-petition interest at the contractual rate; (ii) disputes that the relief sought in the Motion is equitable without considering the overall aggregate costs of the administration of the Trust and the impact of such expenses of administration on the Trust’s beneficiaries as a whole; and (iii) relies upon the “solvent debtor” exception holding and analysis of the Ultra Petroleum case, which is distinguished and further addressed below. Claim Purchasers’ Objection, at ¶¶ 11, 14, 23, 28, 37-43. Moreover, in connection with their plain language argument, the Claim Purchasers expressly acknowledge that res judicata applies to the Court’s confirmation of the Plan. Id., at ¶¶ 34-35. 13. On May 28, 2021 [Docket No. 564], James Kelly, David Fernandez, Glenn Peterman and Willie Janik (collectively, the “Patterson Noteholders”) objected to the Motion asserting that: (i) unimpaired status under the Plan entitles Seller Note holders to post-petition
5interest at contractual rates; (ii) under Ultra Petroleum, an opinion promulgated by this Court, the solvent debtor exception requires that post-petition interest be paid to unsecured creditors at contractual rates (before any surplus is paid to equity interest holders); and (iii) while paying claims at contractual rates may be more burdensome, those considerations do not override the equitable interests of the objecting creditors. Patterson Noteholders’ Objection, at ¶¶ 3-5. 14. Also on May 28, 2021, Dr. Murt Byrne, a Seller Note holder, filed his Joinder to the Patterson Noteholders’ Objection [Docket No. 568]. 15. No holders of unsecured claims have objected to the Motion other than the foregoing, certain holders of Seller Notes. As noted above, the Trustee is aware of no objections on the official docket or otherwise asserted to the Trustee regarding the omnibus claim objection procedures requested in the Motion. II. REPLIES A. The Plain Language of the Plan Specifying that Class 4 is Unimpaired Does Not Presume the Payment of Post-Petition Interest on Account of Unsecured Claims 4. First, it patently false to assert that the plain language of the Plan, this Court’s Confirmation Order, or any related operative document requires the payment of post-petition interest to unsecured creditors at contractual rates. The Plan itself expressly provides: Holders of Allowed Class 4 Claims shall receive, in full and final satisfaction, compromise, settlement, release, and discharge of and in exchange for each Class 4 Claim, payment in Cash in the Allowed amount of such Claim as of the TVET Petition Date, plus any unpaid interest accrued through the Effective Date solely to the extent required by applicable state law to render such Allowed General Unsecured Claims unimpaired. The appropriateness of, and any applicable interest rate, shall be determined by the Bankruptcy Court at the Confirmation Hearing. Plan, at Art. IV.C.4 (emphasis added). 5. The plain language of the Plan only provides Class 4 creditors with post-petition interest payments where required by applicable state law to render these claims “unimpaired”
6under the Plan. The Plan clearly does not presume that the payment of any interest, but leaves “the appropriateness of” any interest, as well as the applicable rate of any such appropriate interest, unresolved. 6. As cited above, Rider 1 appended to the Shareholder Settlement provides that, "Holders of allowed Seller Note Claims and general unsecured claims are unimpaired by the Debtors' Plan.3" This language confirms unimpaired status and does not “plainly” provide for post-petition interest to unsecured creditors at contractual rates. 7. Furthermore, footnote 3 to Rider 1 expressly recites a continuing dispute – rather than any agreement as to such matters – involving at least two sides: parties who contend that unpaid interest must be paid to unsecured creditors at contract rates, and others asserting that the federal judgment rate should apply. Any allegation that the Plan represented some agreement resolving this dispute, or that any particular constituency assumed the burden to dispute an alleged entitlement to post-petition interest to unsecured creditors at contract rates, is refuted by the plain language of the Plan. 8. Accordingly, the Trustee respectfully contends that the sole issue presented by the Objections and left open under the Plan for this Court is whether the “unimpaired” designation under the Plan entitles unsecured creditors to post-petition interest, and if so, whether such interest should or must be paid at their contractual rates, at the federal judgment rate, or at some other equitable rate. Such determination of what “impaired” means and the proper interest payment to “unimpaired” Class 4 creditors under the Plan is purely a question of law. With direction from the Court on this issue and upon approval of omnibus claim objection procedures,
7the Trustee hopes to expeditiously pursue requisite claim objections, administer litigation claims as quickly as possible, and finally make distribution to allowed claimants.4 B. That Unimpaired Status Does Not Require the Payment of Post-Petition Interest to Unsecured Creditors 9. Payment of post-petition interest at contractual rates is not required to render an unsecured claim in bankruptcy to be unimpaired. In In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 624 B.R. 178 (Bankr. S.D. Tex., October 26, 2020), Judge Isgur first noted the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ reversal of his initial opinion in that case, under which the Court of Appeals held that the disallowance of contractual rights by virtue of the Bankruptcy Code itself, as opposed to a bankruptcy plan, cannot be deemed impairment of the creditor’s legally cognizable claim. Ultra Petroleum, 624 B.R. at 183 (emphasis added). 10. The problem with the Objectors’ position is, of course, section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, which expressly disallows post-petition interest (i.e., interest that is unmatured on the petition date) in connection with all unsecured claims. 11 U.S.C. § 502(b). For this reason, Ultra Petroleum expressly held that: If the amounts due under the Make-Whole are unmatured interest, they would be disallowed under § 502(b)(2). Because the Fifth Circuit held that failure to pay amounts disallowed by the Bankruptcy Code does not result in impairment, the classification of the Make-Whole as unmatured interest would permit nonpayment while leaving the holders of the claims "unimpaired." Ultra Petroleum, 624 B.R. at 183-184. 11. There, Judge Isgur distinguished a “make whole provision,” that operated as a liquidated damages and yield maintenance provision, from unpaid post-petition interest in recognition of the critical consequence that would otherwise result: post-petition interest is 4 The Trustee asserts that a determination regarding the proper interest payment to “unimpaired” Class 4 creditors is purely a question of law.
8disallowed by the Bankruptcy Code without rendering an unsecured claim to be impaired. Ultra Petroleum, 624 B.R. at 187-195. 12. This acknowledgement by itself renders Ultra Petroleum consistent with the Trustee’s position in this case. Here, the only issue is whether contract rates are required to calculate unmatured post-petition interest payable to unsecured creditors in order to render them unimpaired. Under the express terms of 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(2), no such claims may exist. 13. Very recently, on May 20, 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the PG&E bankruptcy case entered its Order Affirming Bankruptcy Court's Rulings on Post-Petition Interest, which addresses the material issue presented by the Motion and Objections to this Court: What rate should apply where a confirmed Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan provides for unimpaired treatment to general unsecured claims but is silent as to what corresponding rate should apply, if any, to the calculation of post-petition unpaid interest payable on account of such claims? See Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. PG&E Corporation (In re PG&E Corporation), No. 20-cv-04570-HSG (N.D. Ca. May 20, 2021) (Docket No. 30) (“PG&E II”), at p. 2. 14. In its reasoning, the District Court expressly rejected arguments that “unimpaired” treatment under a plan requires post-petition interest paid to general unsecured creditors as a matter of substantive due process rights. Like Judge Isgur in Ultra Petroleum, the PG&E II Court explained that where the Bankruptcy Code, as opposed to the provisions of a specific plan, curtails or limits a creditors’ rights relating to its claim, such limitation is not impairment. PG&E II, at p. 5. In other words, a plan itself must impair rights to claims that are otherwise cognizable in bankruptcy in order to be deemed to impair such claims, and as to unpaid, post-petition interest, section 502(b)(2) generally disallows any such claims. PG&E II, at p. 5.
915. Therefore, it is simply not correct to assert that unsecured creditors have any claim to unpaid, post-petition interest in this Bankruptcy Case, because all such claims are invalid as a matter of law. See also In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 540 B.R. 109, 110 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015) (An “…unsecured claim is limited to the amount of principal and accrued fees and interest due under the unsecured notes ‘as of the date of the filing of the petition’ and does not include any post-petition interest, regardless of whether such interest would be calculated at the contract rate, the Federal judgment rate or otherwise.” Citing 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)). 16. This same consideration flatly refutes any allegation that post-petition unpaid interest payable on account of general unsecured claims in bankruptcy cases should be determined by state law because section 502(b)(2) negates any such substantive rights. As a result, there is no such “applicable state law” that can require the payment of post-petition interest to unsecured creditors as a condition of “unimpaired” status, due to the express terms of 11 U.S.C. § 502(b). See Brackeen v. Haaland, 994 F.3d 249, 318, (5th Cir. 2021) (discussing federal law pre-emption generally and stating that, “The Supreme Court has expressly held that federal law can "modify" the substance of state law claims. Citing McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 101 S. Ct. 2728 (1981)). C. The Solvent Debtor Exception to the Plan May Not Now be (Re-)Litigated 17. The Ultra Petroleum Court did hold that the solvent debtor exception provided an independent basis for requiring that certain unsecured creditors be paid interest at their contractual, default rates rather than the federal judgment rate. Ultra Petroleum, 624 B.R. at 202-203. 18. However, two critical considerations distinguish that discussion from this case and render it inapposite. First, the Ultra Petroleum Court was presented with a dispute as to
10whether the plan administrators would need to utilize the federal judgment rate, or only two (2) contract rates of interest for claimants under only two (2) contracts: a Master Note Purchase Agreement and a Revolving Credit Facility agreement. See Id., at 182. 19. Thus, Ultra Petroleum did not present any issues of impracticality and waste, nor was that Court delayed by any corresponding considerations of equity and best interests. See, e.g., id., at 201. 20. In contrast, here, while there are twenty-seven (27) unpaid Seller Notes with an aggregate principal balance of $9,262,193.43 and contractual interest rates ranging from 2% to 9%, there are also over two hundred additional unsecured claims in the same Class 4 aggregating in excess of $3.1 million (subject to any objections thereto), including numerous claims for amounts less than even $100. 21. As set forth above, a determination that contract rates are required to and for all such unsecured claims would require the Trustee and his professionals to: (i) review and evaluate whether any contracts even exist with respect to numerous disparate unsecured claims in question, including but not limited to claims for relatively de minimus amounts; (ii) investigate and seek to discover potentially controlling contracts not in the trustee’s possession; (iii) review any and all such contracts; (iv) identify, record, track and calculate all interest payable on account of such claims; and (v) formulate, assert, negotiate, litigate and resolve any disputes with such claimants as to the proper, applicable contract rate. Such a determination also leaves open the potential question of what, if any, interest is payable to unsecured creditors under the Plan who lack governing contracts, and/or whose contracts are silent as to the payment of interest or applicable rates. 22. These questions would substantially complicate the administration of the Liquidating Trust and diminish the aggregate value distributed under the Plan. It simply makes
11no sense in this case, or any case, to spend legal fees to investigate, administer and resolve interest at potential contract rates (if such contracts even exist) with respect to the entirety of the unsecured creditor class. See In re Cuker Interactive, LLC, 622 B.R. 67, 71 (Bankr. S.D. Ca. December 3, 2020) (explaining that while the solvent debtor exception works well in smaller cases, it is impractical in cases involving more substantial claims). 23. As explained in Energy Future Holdings Corp., section 1124 of the Bankruptcy Code defines “unimpaired” status in providing that a creditor is unimpaired under a plan if its legal contractual and equitable rights are unaffected, but under section 502(b)(2) an unsecured creditor has no such legal or contractual rights to post-petition interest. Energy Future Holdings Corp., 540 B.R. at 123. However, because the solvent debtor exception is an equitable doctrine, the Trustee acknowledges that under this doctrine the Court may require post-petition interest paid to unsecured creditors under a plan at whatever rate “as the Court deems appropriate.” Id., at 124. 24. Secondly and critically, in Ultra Petroleum there was an express agreement between the parties to preserve the interest rate dispute and determination to a time following confirmation. No such agreement or reservation exists in this case, and on the contrary, the parties’ agreements expressly incorporated into the Plan provided only that the Court would resolve any dispute regarding “the appropriateness of, and any applicable interest rate, shall be determined by the Bankruptcy Court at the Confirmation Hearing.” Plan, at Art. III.C.IV (emphasis supplied). 25. However, it is undisputed that no party raised any such objection or dispute at the Confirmation Hearing, and the solvent debtor exception is not addressed or invoked in the Plan nor does the Plan assure the payment of any post-petition interest to unsecured creditors or at any particular rate.
1226. Therefore, as discussed in the Motion and as acknowledged by the Claim Purchaser Objectors, principles of preclusion and res judicata prevent the litigation and assertion of any objection to the Plan or related dispute that could have been raised at the time of the Confirmation Hearing, potentially including the “appropriateness” of any interest payable to unsecured creditors. See Motion, at ¶ 31; Claim Purchasers’ Objection, at ¶¶ 33-34. See also In re PTM Techs., Inc., 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 3523, *15-*17 (Bankr. M.D. N.C. 2013) (addressing the solvent debtor exception as a plan confirmation issue). D. Assuming that Post-Petition Interest is Payable to Unsecured Creditors, Unimpaired General Unsecured Claims Should Accrue Post-petition Unpaid Interest at the Federal Post-Judgment Rate 27. Irrespective of the above, the Trustee has determined—pursuant to his discretion created by the Plan and incorporated Trust Agreement—that payment of an some interest to allowed Class 4 claimants is “appropriate” under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Trustee filed the Motion seeking direction from the Court, and suggests approval of the federal judgment rate as an equitable rate in light of the record in this case and prevailing law, including PG&E II and Energy Futures Holdings. 28. The PG&E II Court explained that because unsecured creditors have no contractual or substantive claim or entitlement to post-petition interest due to section 502(b), the payment of post-petition interest to unsecured creditors under a chapter 11 bankruptcy plan is appropriate at the federal post-judgment interest rate because that is the rate traditionally utilized by federal courts as a matter of procedure – not as a substantive claim – to ensure that the claimant is in fact receiving the full present value its adjudicated claim. PG&E II, at pp. 4-6. 29. Furthermore, the PG&E II Court observed that federal courts have traditionally acknowledged that the use of a single, national, “easily determined” federal judgment rate to ensure the preservation of the present value of “judgments” awarded to claimants in federal cases
13promotes efficiency, fairness, predictability and uniformity”, as well as equitable treatment of creditors in bankruptcy. Id., at pp. 4-5. 30. Such an approach addresses head on the impracticality concerns and waste that concerned the Cuker Interactive Court and were not presented under Ultra Petroleum but do exist in this case. It also affords the Trustee the most prompt and efficient pathway to expeditious distributions. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of June, 2021. MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C. By: /s/ Jay H. Ong Jay H. Ong Texas State Bar No. 24028756 Julian P. Vasek Texas State Bar No. 24070790 1717 West 6th Street, Suite 250 Austin, Texas 78703 Telephone: (512) 391-6100 Facsimile: (512) 391-6149 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org COUNSEL FOR THE LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE
14CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 1st day of June, 2021, I personally caused to be served a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing application, (A) by electronically filing it with the Court using the Court's CM/ECF system, which sent notification to all parties of interest receiving notice in this case through the CM/ECF system; and (B) via first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the parties shown below: Johnie Patterson Brad W. Odell WALKER & PATTERSON, P.C. Mullin Hoard & Brown, LLP P.O. Box 61301 1500 Broadway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77208 Lubbock, Texas 79401 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Counsel to James Kelly, David Fernandez, Counsel to Dr. M. Byrne Glenn Peterman and Willie Janik Thomas J. Lykos, Jr. 606 Hunters Grove Lane Houston, Texas 77024 Email: Tlykos@lykoslegal.com Counsel to Rescue Vital Pet, LLC and Protect Vital Pet, LLC By: /s/ Jay H. Ong Jay H. Ong