In re Patriot Coal Corp.
482 B.R. 718 | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York | 2012
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Patriot Coal Corporation filed for bankruptcy in New York, but the court moved the case to Missouri based on where the company actually operated and where most parties involved were located. The judge used a legal rule that allows courts to transfer cases when it serves the interests of justice, even if the company technically filed in the right place. For subcontractors, this means bankruptcy cases can be moved to different courts depending on where the work happened and where creditors are based.
Key Takeaways
- •Filing a bankruptcy case in one location doesn't guarantee it stays there—courts can transfer cases to where the company actually does business
- •If you're a subcontractor owed money by a bankrupt company, the case location matters because it affects which court handles your claim and how quickly you get paid
- •Document where work was performed and where the company's main operations were located—this information can influence where a bankruptcy case is handled
The Patriot Cases Shall be Transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Frequently Asked Question
If a contractor I worked for files bankruptcy in another state, can the case be moved to my state?
Yes. Courts can transfer bankruptcy cases to a different location if it serves the interests of justice, even if the company filed elsewhere. The court looks at where the company actually operated, where most creditors and employees are located, and what's most convenient for handling the case. This is important because it affects which court handles your claim and how you get paid.
Related Cases
United States v. Winstar Corp.
The Government's contractual promises regarding supervisory goodwill accounting treatment are enforceable despite subsequent regulatory changes, and the Government is liable for breach when Congress eliminated those accounting benefits.
Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.
Section 2.306 of the UCC does not apply to take-or-pay gas contracts where parties have specified quantity as a determinable amount (85% of delivery capacity), and good faith obligations remain applicable to increases in delivery capacity.
Zachry Construction Corporation v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas
A no-damages-for-delay provision cannot shield an owner from liability for deliberately and wrongfully interfering with a contractor's work, even if the contract broadly purports to exclude all delay damages.
M.J. Paquet, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Transportation
A contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment when a government agency deletes contract work due to supervening impracticability, even if the contractor submitted an unbalanced bid.
HECI Exploration Co. v. Clajon Gas Co.
A take-or-pay gas contract's obligation to pay for deficient takes is not conditioned on the seller's timely request at the end of each accounting period; the buyer must pay within 30 days of receiving any request with supporting data.
Estate of Wallace v. Commissioner
This case does not involve construction law clauses; it concerns tax deductions for prepaid cattle feed and personal service income characterization under IRC sections 464 and 1348.