In re Trigeant Holdings, Ltd.
523 B.R. 273
Bankr. S.D. Florida2015Background
- This matter concerns a joint objection to the PDVSA Petróleos S.A. claim filed in the Trigeant, Ltd. and related debtors' bankruptcy cases.
- Debtors and Consenting Owners seek disallowance of post-judgment interest accruing after the arbitration confirmation, arguing 28 U.S.C. § 1961 sets a lower statutory rate.
- PDVSA asserts the post-judgment interest rate is 18% per the Final Award and Confirmation Judgment, and argues waiver or judicial estoppel supports that rate.
- The Final Award (Sept. 24, 2008) awarded 18% interest through the award date and future 18% interest; the Confirmation Judgment (Nov. 5, 2009) did not specify post-judgment rate.
- Texas litigation in 2009–2013 involved PDVSA’s claim amount including 18% interest, and affected the refinery foreclosure dispute; a later bankruptcy (Aug. 2014) led to the current plan context where PDVSA’s claim impacts BTB’s foreclosure strategy.
- The Court must determine whether a different post-judgment rate can override § 1961 given the absence of explicit contract/arbitral language adopting a different rate after confirmation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-judgment interest after confirmation is limited to §1961 rate. | Objectors: 0.39% rate under §1961 should apply. | PDVSA: 18% applies per Final Award/Confirmation Judgment. | §1961 governs absent explicit override evidence. |
| Whether the objectors waived or are estopped from challenging 18% post-judgment interest. | Objectors waived or are estopped from challenging the rate. | PDVSA: waiver/estoppel applies. | No waiver/estoppel shown to bar challenge. |
| Whether the objection may preserve other objections or whether §502 objections must be filed separately. | All objections should be preserved for later. | Court should set deadlines for additional objections. | Court set a deadline and non-evidentiary path for further objections. |
| Whether PDVSA is entitled to 506(b) post-petition interest. | Not necessary here; 506(b) supports interest. | 506(b) not addressed in current Objection. | Not decided; issue reserved for separate consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tricon Energy Ltd. v. Vinmar Intern., Ltd., 718 F.3d 448 (5th Cir.2013) (explicit post-judgment interest language overrides §1961 if unambiguous)
- Newmont U.S.A. Ltd. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 615 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir.2010) (courts allow contract-based override of §1961 with explicit language)
- Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. D’Urso, 371 F.3d 96 (2d Cir.2004) (explicit post-judgment interest language can override §1961)
- Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Bomar Nat’l, Inc., 253 F.3d 1011 (7th Cir.2001) (contractual language can override §1961)