In re Lucre, Inc.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan
434 B.R. 807 (2010)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Lucre, Inc. (debtor) provided telecommunications services to Verizon customers. AT&T Michigan (AT&T) (creditor) was statutorily required to provide Lucre with access to AT&T’s facilities to route calls through a separate circuit called the Verizon DEOT. AT&T charged Lucre $3,185.78 per month for the Verizon DEOT. Lucre filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in October 2005 and continued using the Verizon DEOT for roughly three and a half years during the bankruptcy proceeding. AT&T subsequently filed a $1.1 million administrative-expense request in the bankruptcy proceeding, asserting that AT&T was entitled to continued reimbursement of the monthly charges for the use of the Verizon DEOT. AT&T also asserted that at some point during the bankruptcy, the rate for the Verizon DEOT had increased to $17,974.80 per month. Lucre objected to the request, arguing that Lucre’s obligation to AT&T should be treated as a prepetition claim, rather than a postpetition administrative expense. Lucre also asserted that AT&T’s requested claim was excessive because Lucre had not benefited from its postpetition use of the Verizon DEOT. The bankruptcy court likened the contract between AT&T and Lucre to a license giving Lucre permission to use AT&T’s system to route the Verizon calls and then considered whether AT&T had an administrative-expense claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hughes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
