Opinion ID: 205909
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Second Bankruptcy Ruling

Text: On remand in the bankruptcy court, Arlington and the Creditor Committee argued, inter alia, that it could not possibly have been in breach as of September 29, because LF had never followed the Notice Provision procedures set forth in the Interim Order.4 The bankruptcy court agreed, concluding that the Notice Provision effectively created a condition precedent to LF enforcing the agreement, and that LF’s failure to utilize it with regard to the unpaid Commitment and Funding Fees prevented LF from relying on any breach to justify its refusal to lend. But believing itself bound by the law of the case in light of the district court’s ruling, the bankruptcy court 4 Additional new arguments were also made to the bankruptcy court on the second go-round, which we do not address here, because the way we dispose of the appeal makes it unnecessary to do so. The additional arguments are summarized in the district court’s second decision. See Arlington Hospitality, Inc. v. Arlington LF, LLC, 2009 WL 3055350, at  (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2009). 12 No. 09-3560 felt it had to rule for LF, and did so, awarding LF $842,053 in fees plus default interest. This time, both parties appealed—Arlington appealing the award of fees, and LF believing it should have been awarded more.