  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
contractual attorneys fees provision was merged into creditor's judgment against debtor, and neither state law nor judgment provided for award of fees.)
Supplee v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 479 F.3d 167 (2nd Cir. Mar. 2, 2007) (An early retirement benefit owed to one of debtor's employees, as a result of his post-petition termination without cause, was not an administrative expense pursuant to § 507(a)(1). A termination-related debt arising post-petition qualifies as an administrative expense if it is a new benefit earned at termination, but in this case the retirement benefit was owed to the employee regardless of the termination which merely accelerated the timing of payment.)
Howard Delivery Service, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 126 S.Ct. 2105 (June 15, 2006) (Employer/debtor's unpaid workers' compensation premiums did not give rise to § 507(a)(5) priority claims for claims related to an "employee benefit plan," despite ERISA's definition of "employee benefit plan" as including such premiums. The concept of an "employee benefit plan" pursuant to § 507(a)(5) is limited to wage substitutes, and workers' compensation premiums serve primarily to limit the liability of the employer rather than to compensate the employee for services rendered.)
In re Celotex Corp., 472 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. Dec. 20, 2006) (Debtor's codefendant who, jointly and severally with the debtor, is primarily liable for a state court judgment is excluded by § 509(b) from seeking subrogation. By analyzing which party receives consideration for paying a joint debt, § 509(b)(2) embodies the general principle that subrogation is not available to a party who satisfies a debt for which that party was primarily obligated. Here, the co-defendant who paid the debt received the consideration - release from the debt - for that payment and, accordingly, is prohibited by § 509(b) from subrogation.)
In re Official Cmte. of Unsecured Creditors, 453 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. June 27, 2006) (Bankruptcy court has power to recharacterize an allowed claim as equity rather than debt, even in the absence of inequitable conduct by the claimant. Recharacterization is within the broad powers afforded the court by § 105(a) and facilitates the application of the priority scheme set forth in § 726. A court may consider many factors in determining whether to recharacterize a claim. In this case, the bankruptcy court appropriately recharacterized the claim based on the claimant's insider status vis-a-vis the debtor, the lack of a fixed maturity date for the purported loan, the fact that the debtor was not required to repay the claimant until the debtor became profitable, the debtor's history of unprofitability and the claimant's history of assuming the debtor's losses. The fact that the transactions
