Case Name: In the Matter of WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., Petitioner-Appellee, v. The Plan Committee, Respondent-Appellant, and Washington Group International, Inc., Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-21
Citations: 530 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 11-17447
Parties: In the Matter of WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., Petitioner-Appellee, v. The Plan Committee, Respondent-Appellant, and Washington Group International, Inc., Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, Respondents.
Judges: Before McKEOWN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ZILLY, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 502
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
In the Matter of WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., Petitioner-Appellee, v. The Plan Committee, Respondent-Appellant, and Washington Group International, Inc., Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, Respondents.
No. 11-17447.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 17, 2013.
Filed June 21, 2013.
Frederick Huff, Denver, CO, Laury Miles MacAuley, Esquire, Lewis and Roca, LLP, Reno, NV, Steven R. Schooley, The Schooley Law Firm, Orlando, FL, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Todd Dressel, Chapman and Cutler LLP, San Francisco, CA, Laura Elizabeth Appleby, Chapman and Cutler LLP., New York, NY, Sylvia L. Harrison, Esquire, McDonald Carano Wilson, LLP, Reno, NV, for Respondent-Appellant.
Before McKEOWN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ZILLY, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In litigation between the Department of Energy's ("DOE") contractor, Washington Group International, Inc. ("WGI"), and its subcontractor, Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. ("GIT"), GIT was awarded a judgment against WGI that included post judgment interest, which continued to accrue after WGI filed for bankruptcy. The Plan Committee, a fiduciary to the Class 7 claimants in WGI's bankruptcy proceeding, now appeals the district court's order reversing the bankruptcy court and directing that GIT may collect post-petition interest from the DOE. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) and 1291. Reviewing de novo, In re AFI Holding, Inc., 525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir.2008), we affirm.
The Bankruptcy Code's prohibition on claims for "unmatured interest" under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(2) shields the bankruptcy estate but does not protect non-debtor third parties from post-petition interest. See 11 U.S.C. § 524(e). In Bruning v. United States, 376 U.S. 358, 362, 84 S.Ct. 906, 11 L.Ed.2d 772 (1964), the Supreme Court explained that "[t]he basic reasons for the rule denying post-petition interest as a claim against the bankruptcy estate are the avoidance of unfairness as between competing creditors and the avoidance of administrative inconvenience." We agree with the district court that neither of these reasons is implicated when post-petition interest is collected from a non-debtor third party who is derivatively responsible for the obligations of the debtor.
Here, GIT's collection of post-petition interest from the DOE does no harm to WGI's other creditors and results in no additional administrative inconvenience to WGI's estate. We are persuaded by the district court's analysis that the mere possibility of GIT making a claim against WGI's estate in the event that the DOE cannot or is unwilling to pay the full judgment is not enough to preclude GIT from collecting post-petition interest from the DOE. Because the prohibition against post-petition interest is merely a "rule of distribution" that does not change the "interest bearing quality" of a claim, id. at 362 n. 4, § 502(b)(2) does not alter the liability of a non-debtor third party.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.