Oak Creek Wood Products, LLC
11
G. Michael Halfenger
08/26/2025
10/04/2025
Yes
v
| PlnDue, SCHEDULESDUE, NTCAPR |
Assigned to: G. Michael Halfenger Chapter 11 Voluntary Asset |
|
Debtor In Possession Oak Creek Wood Products, LLC, Debtor
190 W Marquette Ave Oak Creek, WI 53154 Tax ID / EIN: 83-0593821 |
represented by |
Evan Schmit
Kerkman & Dunn 839 North Jefferson Street, Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-277-8200 Email: eschmit@kerkmandunn.com Nicholas Kerkman
Kerkman & Dunn 839 N. Jefferson St Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-277-8200 Fax : 414-277-0100 Email: nkerkman@kerkmandunn.com Tyler M. Jones
Kerkman & Dunn 839 N Jefferson St. Suite #400A Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-277-8200 Email: tjones@kerkmandunn.com |
U.S. Trustee Office of the U. S. Trustee
517 East Wisconsin Ave. Room 430 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-297-4499 |
represented by |
Dillon J. Ambrose
DOJ 517 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 430 Milwaukee, WI 53202 202-702-8738 Email: dillon.j.ambrose@usdoj.gov Laura D. Steele
DOJ-Ust 517 E. Wisconsin Ave. Ste 430 Milwaukee, WI 53202 202-603-5188 Email: laura.steele@usdoj.gov |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 10/01/2025 | 75 | BNC Certificate of Mailing - PDF Document (RE: 67 Order (Generic)). Notice Date 10/01/2025. (Admin.) (Entered: 10/01/2025) |
| 10/01/2025 | 74 | Final Order Granting Debtor's Motion for Approval of Adequate Protection and Post-Petition Financing Provided by Capital Credit, Inc. and Setting Deadline for Objecting to Capital Credit's Proof of Claim (Related Doc # 11) (eeb, Deputy Clerk) (Signed: 10/01/2025) (Entered: 10/01/2025) |
| 10/01/2025 | 73 | PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [ 10/1/2025 2:49:25 PM ]. File Size [ 14005 KB ]. Run Time [ 00:29:11 ]. (Final Hearing on Debtor's First-Day Motions). (admin). (Entered: 10/01/2025) |
| 10/01/2025 | 72 | Proposed final order on postpetition financing and adequate protection (RE: 69 Order (Virtual Event)). (saa, Law Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2025) |
| 10/01/2025 | 71 | Notice of Appearance and Request for Notice filed by Ryan T. Bald on behalf of JFF Wood Products, Inc., JFF Wood Trucking LLC, Mark Wolff, Nora Wolff. (Bald, Ryan) (Entered: 10/01/2025) |
| 10/01/2025 | 70 | NOTICE: As authorized by the court's September 30, 2025 order, parties and counsel may appear at the October 1 hearing by Zoom videoconference at http://www.zoomgov.com/join, by entering Meeting ID 161 2029 1132 and Passcode 600430 before the scheduled hearing time. (RE: 69 Order (Virtual Event)). (saa, Law Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2025) |
| 09/30/2025 | 69 | Order: After reviewing Capital Credit Inc.'s September 30 correspondence, the court concludes that Capital Credit and the court do not share the same fundamental understanding of the court's role in the present context, viz., whether the court should authorize the debtor in possession, acting with the powers and duties of a trustee, to sell property under section 363 or obtain credit under section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code. In the court's view, its proposed order would grant the debtor the full relief it might obtain under those sections: the order would authorize the debtor's proposed agreements with Capital Credit under which the debtor sells (or has sold) receivables and Capital Credit agrees to extend credit. Authorization, sections 363's and 364's touchstone, is required and was requested; the proposed order would grant it in full. Capital Credit (not a party directly authorized to seek relief under either section) wants more: namely, it wants the court to issue (purporting to act under sections 363 and 364) declarations about the applicability of sections 363(m) and 364(e) -- both of which are self-effectuating and state generally that reversal on appeal of an order authorizing a good-faith sale under 363 or a good-faith loan under section 364 does not invalidate those transactions unless the authorization was stayed pending appeal -- even though there is no controversy involving those subsections. Capital Credit apparently wants to litigate its good faith now. The problem is that no one has contested its good faith and the statute does not require that the court make that determination to grant the debtor relief. In short, there is no controversy, so there is no basis for declaring that section 363(m) and 364(e) would preserve the transactions if someone appeals (who?, one wonders, given the lack of any objection) and fails to get a stay pending appeal. See 28 U.S.C. sec. 2201(a) ("In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a proceeding under section 505 or 1146 of title 11, . . , any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." (Emphasis added.)). Beyond this, Capital Credit seeks an order that adjudicates its rights against imagined future adversaries bringing imagined future attempts to limit the vast rights to which the debtor has agreed and the court stands prepared to authorize. Capital Credit, as best the court can tell, sees the court as something like an administrative agency that Capital Credit hopes will not only bless its transactions with the debtor as permissible but will also afford those transactions regulatory protection from all manner of future contingencies. The problem for Capital Credit's view is that title 28 of the United States Code establishes the bankruptcy court as "a unit of the district court" to which the statute assigns officers, denoted "bankruptcy judges," who are "judicial officer[s] of the district court". 28 U.S.C. sec. 151. The same title vests jurisdiction over all bankruptcy cases and proceedings to the district court with permission to delegate those matters to its unit known as the bankruptcy court for rulings in the first instance by bankruptcy judges. See 28 U.S.C. secs. 157 and 1334. None of this -- nor anything in title 11 -- suggests that bankruptcy judges should go about their business of adjudication any differently than district court judges. A litigant (here, the debtor) seeks relief. The court can grant that relief to the extent the law authorizes it. The trouble the court has with the ornaments Capital Credit would have it hang on its order is that the court does not see how that relief is authorized in the current context. Therefore, the court will hold the October 1 hearing on the debtor's motion as previously ordered. Unless there is some yet unannounced (untimely) objection that the court determines it should entertain, the court anticipates that after the debtor's presentation of the motion and any evidence it might want to add to the record (though there appears to be no need at the moment), the court will exercise its authority under sections 363 and 364 to authorize the debtor to engage in the proposed transactions with Capital Credit. Full stop. Notwithstanding previous orders setting the October 1 hearing, the court will arrange to allow appearances by Zoom video conference, except only parties who appear in person in the courtroom may present evidence or examine witnesses. Before the hearing the court will post a separate docket entry providing instructions for joining by video conference. |
| 09/30/2025 | 68 | Correspondence filed by Michael P Richman on behalf of Capital Credit Inc.. (RE: 67 Order (Generic)). (Richman, Michael) (Entered: 09/30/2025) |
| 09/29/2025 | BNC Returned Mail for CISION, 1785 Grensboro Station, 8th Floor, Mc Lean, VA 22102-3594 ( RE: 24 Order (Generic) ). (Admin) (Entered: 10/02/2025) | |
| 09/29/2025 | 67 | Order addressing debtor's proposed final order on postpetition financing and adequate protection (RE: 11 Emergency Motion Regarding Chapter 11 First Day Motion. In Re: (I) Interim (and Final) Order Approving a Pre-Petition Factoring Agreement with Capital Credit Incorporated to Operate Post-Petition and (II) Interim (and Final) Order Approving of Debtor). (saa, Law Clerk) (Entered: 09/29/2025) |