Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division
September 16, 2009, Decided
CASE NO. 08-45664 (DML), JOINTLY ADMINISTERED, CHAPTER 11
[*234] Memorandum Opinion
Before the court is Debtors' Omnibus Response To Section 503(b)(9) Claims (the "Response") in which Debtors object to certain claims made under section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Code") (11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.) by trucking, electric, water, and gas companies. 1 In the Response, Debtors objected to the section 503(b)(9) 2 claims by trucking companies Stanley Freight, LLC ("Stanley"), S. Easley Trucking, Inc., and Chuck's Transport, Inc. (collectively the "Trucking Companies"). Debtors also objected to the section 503(b)(9) claims of the City of Nacogdoches (the "City") a provider of, inter alia, water and Claiborne Electric Cooperative, Inc., an electricity provider (the "Electricity Provider"). Finally, Debtors objected to the section 503(b)(9) claims of gas utility companies CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc., Piedmont Natural Gas, Atmos Energy Corp., Atmos Energy [**3] Marketing, LLC, and Marshall County Gas District (collectively the "Gas Providers," and with the Trucking Companies, the City, and the Electricity Provider, the "503(b)(9) Claimants").
Stanley, the City, the Electricity Provider, Marshall County Gas District, Atmos Energy Corp., Atmos Energy Marketing, LLC, and CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc., all filed replies to the Response (each individually a "Reply," and collectively the "Replies"). Debtors then filed Debtors' Omnibus Reply to Section 503(b)(9) Objections [*235] (the "Debtors' Reply"). A hearing (the "Hearing") was held on July 21, 2009, during which the court heard argument from Debtors and various of the 503(b)(9) Claimants.
The court exercises core jurisdiction over this contested matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(b)(2)(A), (B), [**4] and (O). This memorandum opinion constitutes the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. FED. R. BANKR. P. 7052 AND 9014.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
421 B.R. 231 *; 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 2763 **; 62 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 548; 52 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 30
IN RE PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION, ET AL., DEBTORS.
electricity, Provider, courts, Reply, Claimants, administrative claim, trucking company, minerals, Energy, falls, provide a service, sales contract, cases, meter, value of goods, natural gas, commencement, entitlement, prepetition, commodity
Bankruptcy Law, Unsecured Priority Claims, Administrative Expenses, Priority, Commercial Law (UCC), Contract Provisions, Contract Terms, General Overview, Governments, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate, Energy & Utilities Law, Electric Power Industry, Types of Claims, Secured Claims & Liens, Rights of Secured Creditors