U.S. Truck Co., Inc., In re
| Decision Date | 04 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1375,85-1375 |
| Parties | 123 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2849, 55 USLW 2154, 15 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 553, 14 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1327, Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,460 In re U.S. TRUCK COMPANY, INC., a Michigan Corporation, Debtor. TEAMSTERS NATIONAL FREIGHT INDUSTRY NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, Appellant, v. U.S. TRUCK COMPANY, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Gerry M. Miller, Larry R. Steffes, Goldberg, Previant, Uelman, Gratz, Miller and Brueggeman, Milwaukee, Wis., Kenneth Dau-Schmidt (argued), for appellant.
Joseph S. Radom, P.C., Birmingham, Mich., Thomas B. Radom (argued), George Arlen Peck, Marco, Eagan, Kennedy & Timmis, Grosse Pointe, Mich., for appellee.
Before KENNEDY and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
The Teamsters National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee (the Teamsters Committee), a creditor of U.S. Truck Company, Inc. (U.S. Truck)--the debtor-in-possession in this Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding--appeals the District Court's order confirming U.S. Truck's Fifth Amended Plan of Reorganization. The Teamsters Committee complains that the plan does not satisfy three of the requirements of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1129. The District Court, which presided over the matter after the resignation of Bankruptcy Judge Stanley B. Bernstein, held that the requirements of section 1129 had been satisfied. We agree.
Underlying this appeal is the Teamsters Committee's claim that U.S. Truck is liable to its employees for rejecting a collective bargaining agreement between the local union and U.S. Truck. After filing its petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on June 11, 1982, U.S. Truck, a trucking company primarily engaged in intrastate shipping of parts and supplies for the automotive industry, sought to reject the collective bargaining agreement. U.S. Truck rejected the agreement with the approval of then-Bankruptcy-Judge Woods, in December 1982. Judge Woods found that rejection of the agreement was "absolutely necessary to save the debtor from collapse." Memorandum Opinion and Order, December 6, 1982, at page 8. New agreements have been negotiated to the satisfaction of each participating local union. Such agreements have been implemented over the lone dissent of the Teamsters Joint Area Rider Committee. Under the most recently mentioned agreement in the record (due to have expired in March 1985), U.S. Truck was able to record monthly profits in the range of $125,000 to $250,000. These new agreements achieved such results by reducing wages and requiring employees to buy their own trucking equipment, which the employees then leased to the company. 1
The parties agreed to an estimate of the size of the Teamsters Committee claim against U.S. Truck so that the confirmation plan could be considered. The District Court held a hearing to consider the plan on January 23, 1985. The court considered three objections by the Teamsters Committee to the plan. 2 Consideration of the objections, and the court's treatment of them, requires an understanding of the statutory scheme for approval of a chapter 11 reorganization plan.
Section 1129 contains two means by which a reorganization plan can be confirmed. The first way is to meet all eleven of the requirements of subsection (a), including (a)(8) which requires all impaired classes of claims or interests 3 to accept the plan. The other way is to meet the requirements of subsection (b), which, first, incorporates all of the requirements of subsection (a), except for that contained in subsection (a)(8), and, second, imposes two additional requirements. 4 Confirmation under subsection (b) is commonly referred to as a "cram down" because it permits a reorganization plan to go into effect over the objections of one or more impaired classes of creditors. In this case, U.S. Truck sought approval of its plan under this "cram down" provision.
The Teamsters Committee's first objection is that the plan does not meet the requirement that at least one class of impaired claims accept the plan, see 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1129(a)(10), because U.S. Truck impermissibly gerrymandered the classes in order to neutralize the Teamsters Committee's dissenting vote. The reorganization plan contains twelve classes. The plan purports to impair five of these classes--Class VI (the unsecured claim of Manufacturer's National Bank of Detroit based on a mortgage); Class VII (the secured claim of John Graham, Trustee of Transportation Services, Inc., based on a loan); Class IX (the Teamsters Committee's claim based on rejection of the collective bargaining agreement); Class XI (all secured claims in excess of $200.00 including those arising from the rejection of executory contracts); and Class XII (the equity interest of the stockholder 5 of the debtor). As noted above, section 1129(a)(10), as incorporated into subsection (b)(1), requires at least one of these classes of impaired claims to approve the reorganization plan before it can be confirmed. The parties agree that approval by Class XII would not count because acceptance must be determined without including the acceptance of the plan by any insider. See 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1129(a)(10). The Code's definition of "insider" clearly includes McKinlay Transport, Inc. See 11 U.S.C. Sec. 101(28)(B)(iii), (30). Thus, compliance with subsection (a)(10) depends on whether either of the other three classes that approved the plan--Class VI, Class VII, or Class XI--was a properly constructed impaired class. The Teamsters Committee argues that Classes VI and VII were not truly impaired classes and that Class XI should have included Class IX, and hence was an improperly constructed class. 6 Because we find that Class XI was a properly constructed class of impaired claims, we hold that the plan complies with subsection (a)(10). 7
The issue raised by the Teamsters Committee's challenge is under what circumstances does the Bankruptcy Code permit a debtor to keep a creditor out of a class of impaired claims which are of a similar legal nature and are against the same property as those of the "isolated" creditor. The District Court held that the Code permits such action here because of the following circumstances: (1) the employees represented by the Teamsters Committee have a unique continued interest in the ongoing business of the debtor; (2) the mechanics of the Teamsters Committee's claim differ substantially from those of the Class XI claims; and (3) the Teamsters Committee's claim is likely to become part of the agenda of future collective bargaining sessions between the union and the reorganized company. See 47 B.R. at 939-40. Thus, according to the court, the interests of the Teamsters Committee are substantially dissimilar from those of the creditors in Class XI. We must decide whether the Code permits separate classification under such circumstances.
Congress has sent mixed signals on the issue that we must decide. Our starting point is 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1122.
Sec. 1122. Classification of claims or interests
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a plan may place a claim or an interest in a particular class only if such claim or interest is substantially similar to the other claims or interests of such class.
(b) A plan may designate a separate class of claims consisting only of every unsecured claim that is less than or reduced to an amount that the court approves as reasonable and necessary for administrative convenience.
The statute, by its express language, only addresses the problem of dissimilar claims being included in the same class. It does not address the correlative problem--the one we face here--of similar claims being put in different classes. Some courts have seized upon this omission, and have held that the Code does not require a debtor to put similar claims in the same class.
We think the courts erred in holding that section 1122(a) prohibits classification based on the presence of a co-debtor. Section 1122(a) specifies that only claims which are "substantially similar" may be placed in the same class. It does not require that similar claims must be grouped together, but merely that any group created must be homogenous. See 5 Collier on Bankruptcy p 1122.03[b] at 1122-6 (15th ed. 1982); accord, In re Gay, 3 B.R. 336 (Bkrtcy.D.Colo.1980); In re Kovich, 4 B.R. 403 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mich.1980). Although some courts have held that section 1122(a) prohibits classification based on any criterion other than legal right to the debtor's assets, see, e.g., In re Iacovoni, 2 B.R. 256, 260-61 (Bkrtcy.D.Utah), the plain language of the statute contradicts such a construction. Moreover, section 1122(a) so interpreted would conflict with section 1322(b)(1), which specifically authorizes designation of more than one class of unsecured creditor, each presumably with equal legal rights to the debtor's estate.
Barnes v. Whelan, 689 F.2d 193, 201 (D.C.Cir.1982) (emphasis in original) ( that Chapter 13 debtor may group his unsecured debtors according to whether or not a co-debtor is present); see also In re Planes, 48 B.R. 698, 701 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ga.1985); In re Moore, 31 B.R. 12, 16 (Bkrtcy.D.S.C.1983).
Further evidence that Congress intentionally failed to impose a requirement that similar claims be classified together is found by examining the "classification" sections of the former Bankruptcy Act. The applicable former provisions were 11 U.S.C., sections 597 (from former Chapter X) and 751 (from former Chapter XI).
Sec. 597. Classification of creditors and stockholders
For the purposes of the plan and its acceptance, the judge shall fix the division of creditors and stockholders into classes according to the nature of their respective claims and stock. For the purposes of such classification, the judge shall, if necessary, upon the application of the trustee, the debtor, any creditor, or an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Husted v. Taggart (In re ECS Ref., Inc.)
...191 L.Ed.2d 621 (2015) ; In re Coltex Loop Central Three Partners, L.P. , 138 F.3d 39, 46 (2nd Cir. 1998) ); In re U.S. Truck Co., Inc. , 800 F.2d 581, 588, 590 (6th Cir. 1986). The new value contributed must be reasonably equivalent to the interest received or the property retained. In re ......
-
203 North LaSalle Street Partnership, Matter of
...also has adopted the position that, even after the enactment of the Code, the new value corollary has vitality. See In re U.S. Truck Co., 800 F.2d 581, 588 (6th Cir.1986) ("If McKinlay were retaining an interest without contributing any capital, the plan would clearly violate the Code.... B......
-
Matter of Homestead Partners, Ltd.
.... . . the source of their retained interest is not their prior ownership, but rather their new contribution"); In re U.S. Truck Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 581, 588 (6th Cir.1986); Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Woodscape Ltd. Partnership (In re Woodscape Ltd. Partnership) 134 B.R. 165, 172-74 B. Appli......
-
Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.
... ... See Allied Colloids Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 64 F.3d 1570, 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1840, 1841 (Fed.Cir.1995). Under that standard, we examine the ... Although the record before us does not indicate it, presumably the inventors signed the fraudulently prepared application. As ... ...
-
CHAPTER 2 TINKERBELLE, THE CRUDE PEOPLE AND THE BANKRUPTCY CODE
...1087, 1090 (11th Cir. 1998). [342] Teamsters Nat'l Freight Ind. Negotiating Comm. v. U.S. Truck Co., Inc. (In re U.S. Truck Co., Inc.), 800 F.2d 581, 589 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 251 B.R. 213, 224 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2000). [343] See In re Pikes Peak Water Co., 779......
-
America's Public Shell Trafficking Problem: Ripe for Reprocessing
...See, e.g., Canal Place, LP v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 921 F.2d 569, 579 (5th Cir. 1991). 177. See, e.g., In re U.S. Truck Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 581, 588-89 (6th Cir. 1986).178. See, e.g., In re Sparta Surgical Corp., No. 06-CV-02601, 2008 WL 878948, at *2, *4 (D. Colo. Mar. 28, 2008) (quoting th......
-
Michael Chaisanguanthum, Charter: the Most Important Recent Bankruptcy Decision for Secured Creditors
...995 F.2d 1274, 1279 (5th Cir. 1991); Teamsters Nat'l Freight Indus. Negotiating Comm. v. U.S. Truck Co., Inc. (In re U.S. Truck Co.), 800 F.2d 581, 587 (6th Cir. 1986). 41 See, e.g., John Hancock, 987 F.3d 2d at 162 ("Trade creditors are often thought to vote their unsecured claims in order......
-
Chapter 18 The Plan
...§§ 18.11-12.[61] See also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3013.[62] In re Jersey City Med. Ctr., 817 F.2d 1055 (3d Cir. 1987).[63] In re U.S. Truck Co., 800 F.2d 581 (6th Cir. 1986). For more on why labor claims are different, see supra § 11.29.[64] See supra § 5.11.[65] A leading noncooperator is In re ......