Legal proceedings where courts have been required to determine the classification of electricity as either a “good” or a “service” under § 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code have been the subject of recent “charged” debates.
Bankruptcy Litigation Committee
Committees
Numerous bankruptcy court decisions have considered whether electricity is a good under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(9).[1] One of the most recent decisions, In re NE Opco Inc.,[2] bucks a recent trend in cases that have held that electricity is a good under § 503(b)(9).[3] Moreover, in ruling that electricity is not a good for this purpose, the NE Opco court adopted a fresh approach to the issue based on the notion of meaningful delay between identification to the contract and consumption.
Section 503(b)[1] of the Bankruptcy Code sets out the nine types of administrative expenses in a bankruptcy proceeding that receive a priority distribution under § 507(a)(2). Section 503(b) derives from § 64a of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, which entitled the costs and expenses of administration of a bankruptcy estate to priority over dividends paid to creditors.[2] Section 503(b)(9) grants a seller of goods an administrative expense for the value of any goods that the debtor received within 20 days before the petition date, if the goods were sold to the debtor in the ordinary course of the debtor’s business.[3]
Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code creates an administrative expense for “the value of any goods received by the debtor” within 20 days preceding bankruptcy. While there is little case law analyzing the appropriate measure of “value” under this section, courts that have addressed the question recognize that the purchase price reflected in the invoice or contract, pursuant to which the goods were delivered to the debtor, is prima facie evidence of value but that it can be rebutted by other evidence.
Determinations as to whether electricity is a “good” for purposes of § 503(b)(9) remains an intensely fact-driven exercise with a lack of consistency coming from the courts. This inconsistency was evidenced by four recent written decisions addressing the issue.
It’s the Facts? It’s the Facts!
Whether a particular dispute arising in a bankruptcy case must be decided by arbitration or litigation before the bankruptcy court is itself an issue that has been the subject of much litigation in bankruptcy courts.
Tax refunds and the election by consumer debtors to apply those refunds to future tax liability can raise many issues in consumer chapter 7 and chapter 13 bankrupt
Two bankruptcy courts have recently addressed the issue of whether a debtor’s activities with creditors in general can affect the ordinary-course-of-business defen
Mr. John C. Cannizzaro
Co-Chair
Ice Miller LLP
Columbus, OH
(614) 462-2700
Co-Chair
Ice Miller LLP
Columbus, OH
(614) 462-2700
Ms. Isley Markman Gostin
Co-Chair
WilmerHale
Washington, DC
(202) 663-6551
Co-Chair
WilmerHale
Washington, DC
(202) 663-6551
Mr. Mark A. Platt
Communications Manager
Frost Brown Todd LLC
Dallas, TX
(214) 580-5852
Communications Manager
Frost Brown Todd LLC
Dallas, TX
(214) 580-5852
Ms. Sara L. Abner, Esq.
Education Director
Frost Brown Todd LLC
Louisville, KY
(502) 779-8178
Education Director
Frost Brown Todd LLC
Louisville, KY
(502) 779-8178
Mrs. Dana L. Robbins
Membership Relations Director
Burr & Forman LLP
Tampa, FL
(813) 367-5760
Membership Relations Director
Burr & Forman LLP
Tampa, FL
(813) 367-5760
Mr. Jon Jay Lieberman
Special Projects Leader
Sottile & Barile LLC
Loveland, OH
(859) 912-1659
Special Projects Leader
Sottile & Barile LLC
Loveland, OH
(859) 912-1659