Opinion ID: 3064802
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: (1) Did the Release under the PCSA irrevocably extinguish Centre’s claim against SNIG up to $180 million or was SNIG’s liability revived to the extent of $110 million upon Centre’s payment of that amount to the Commissioner? (a) Has a finding or final order triggering the remedies set forth in Article X been made or entered? attempting to exercise its rights in accordance with “any other remedy provided by law, equity, statute, or contract.” Memorandum of Opinion at 7. The court held that any such remedy arose postpetition and thus was unavailable to Centre. “Centre’s postpetition attempt to exercise any remedies it may be entitled to under [Article] X is beyond the scope of this memorandum because no legal theory exists (and Centre has been unable to articulate one) where the postpetition exercise of remedies by Centre would somehow impact the prepetition release.” Id. at 13. Specifically, the court rejected Centre’s argument that it held a prepetition contingent claim against SNIG and that there was a failure of consideration for the release. We disagree with the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Centre does not hold an allowable contingent claim under section 502(b), as explained later in this opinion. IN THE MATTER OF SNTL 7449 (b) If so, is any remedy available to Cen- tre under which SNIG’s liability could be revived? (c) If the triggering event has occurred and a remedy is available at law, does sec- tion 502(b) nonetheless preclude allowance of Centre’s claim? (2) Can Centre, as an unsecured creditor, include in its proof of claim attorneys’ fees arising from a prepetition contract but incurred postpetition?