FOLLOW US

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Monday it may take a closer look at car rental giant Hertz Corp.’s high-stakes bankruptcy showdown, inviting the Solicitor General to weigh in on a challenge that could reshape how solvent companies repay creditors after emerging from Chapter 11.

At the heart of this legal collision: a $272 million payout dispute involving post-bankruptcy interest and early payment premiums to unsecured noteholders, despite those creditors being fully repaid under Hertz’s 2021 reorganization plan.

The Core of the Clash: Solvent Debtor Exception

The Supreme Court issued a brief but potent order, requesting that Solicitor General D. John Sauer submit a brief expressing the U.S. government's position on whether the Court should hear the case. Hertz had filed its petition for certiorari in April, aiming to reverse a split Third Circuit decision that invoked the long-debated “solvent debtor exception”—a doctrine rooted in common law but controversial in its modern application.

That decision found that Hertz still owed $147 million in early repayment premiums and $125 million in post-petition interest to creditors represented by Wells Fargo, acting as the indenture trustee for the holders of $1.24 billion in unsecured notes.

A Legal Roadmap through Bankruptcy History

Hertz contends the Third Circuit erred by allowing common law principles to override the Bankruptcy Code’s prohibition on unmatured interest, arguing that Congress intended to limit such creditor recoveries during its 1978 revamp of the Bankruptcy Code. But Wells Fargo pushed back, asserting the solvent debtor exception was baked into the code and remains valid.

According to Wells Fargo, the noteholders were impaired creditors under the bankruptcy plan because they didn’t receive their contractual interest and premiums, thus entitling them to compensation under long-standing precedents.

Implications Reach Far Beyond Hertz

While this legal saga began with a Hertz bankruptcy amid pandemic chaos, the broader implications of the case stretch deep into the fabric of corporate restructuring law. At stake is not only the fate of $272 million but also the judicial latitude bankruptcy courts may have when dealing with financially solvent debtors emerging from reorganization.

Legal observers now await the Solicitor General's take—a signal that the nation’s highest court may be preparing to rewrite the rulebook on post-bankruptcy creditor entitlements.