About This Blog
The Delaware Bankruptcy Insider is a premier blog designed to bring its readers a comprehensive analysis of the latest Delaware corporate bankruptcy news and rulings. Brought to you by Ashby & Geddes, P.A.
- Delaware Court of Chancery
- Delaware District Court
- Delaware Supreme Court
- Judge Brendan L. Shannon
- Judge Christopher S. Sontchi
- Judge Gregory M. Sleet
- Judge Kevin Gross
- Judge Kevin J. Carey
- Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein
- Judge Leonard P. Stark
- Judge Mary F. Walrath
- Judge Peter J. Walsh
- Judge Richard G. Andrews
- Judge Sue L. Robinson
- Third Circuit Court of Appeals
- United States Supreme Court
- Stern Requires More Than Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Bankruptcy Court Must Also Have Constitutional Adjudicatory Authority to Approve Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases in a Plan
- Bankruptcy Court Finds “Close Nexus” Between Adversary Proceeding and Plan Necessary to Exercise Post-Confirmation, “Related to” Jurisdiction
- The Supreme Court’s Answer is Simply “No”—Structured Dismissals Cannot Deviate From the Code’s Priority Rules Without Consent of Affected Creditors
Federal Courts App (iTunes)
Federal Courts App (Google Play)
The Bankruptcy Code
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Delaware Bankruptcy Court - Local Rules and Orders
Delaware District Court
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. Supreme Court
The United States Courts
Office of the United States Trustee for the Third Circuit
Delaware Bankruptcy American Inn of Court
For more information
Ashby & Geddes, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-1150
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Finds Debtor Did Not Properly Terminate Contract, Faces Significant Breach of Contract Damages
In re Outer Harbor Terminal, LLC, No. 16-10283 (LSS), 2017 WL 696676 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 21, 2017)
In the context of a claims objection, the Court adhered to unambiguous contract language in determining that the presence of a termination triggering event did not automatically terminate a contract, opening the door for potentially significant damages. This matter will now proceed to the damages phase, where the non-debtor contract counterparty has alleged in its proof of claim an approximate $13.3 million in, among other things, breach of contract damages.
Outer Harbor Terminal, LLC (the “Debtor”) provided stevedoring services—docking and loading/unloading ships—to carriers at the Port of Oakland, California. The Debtor and Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. (“‘K’ Line”) entered into an agreement whereby the Debtor would serve as “K” Line’s exclusive stevedoring provider. The contract provided that either party could immediately terminate the agreement without notice to the other party if, among other things, the party “ceases to do business.” Op. at 5. Prior to filing bankruptcy on February 1, 2016, the Debtor sent “K” Line (and its other contract counterparties) a press release dated January 19, 2016, stating its intention to wind down its operations as well as an email confirmation of same. In the email, the Debtor also granted “K” Line permission to use another service provider for one of its service lines. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Debtor continued to provide services to “K” Line through March 28, 2016 and did not cease business operations until at least April 22, 2016. The Debtor set a bar date of April 7, 2016, and “K” Line timely filed a proof of claim alleging, among other things, breach of contract damages. The Debtor filed a claims objection asserting that the contract was automatically terminated on January 19, 2016 pursuant to the terms of the contract when it announced its intention to cease doing business.
The Court quickly found that the parties’ contract is unambiguous—it allows for immediate termination of the agreement by either party without notice to the other, upon the happening of various events, including, the cessation of business. Op. at 7. However, the Debtor directed the Court to no document demonstrating that it terminated the agreement and neither the Debtor’s press release nor email confirmation stated that the Debtor terminated the agreement. The Court determined that the earliest the Debtor could have terminated the agreement under its business cessation argument was April 22, 2016—the date the Debtor ceased doing business. The contract did not provide that the Debtor could terminate the agreement at some future date; rather, only “immediately when” one of the stated conditions are met. Although the Debtor “may have been laudably benevolent” by its actions to ease the wind down transition for its contract counterparties, the Court “cannot rewrite the Agreement to save the Debtor from any perceived penalty resulting from its choice to be a good corporate citizen.” Op. at 10. Therefore, the Court overruled the claims objection, and directed the parties to proceed to the damages phase.