11 U.S.C. §101(12) defines “debt” as “liability on a claim,” while “claim” is defined by 11 U.S.C. §101(5) as: (A) right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured; or (B) right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured. The Supreme Court construed this provision to include claims for the alternative payment of money arising from the debtor’s equitable duties. Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U.S. 274, 283, 105 S.Ct. 705, 710 (1985). The Kovacs Court noted that the legislative history of §101(5) contemplates that contingent payment rights having an alternative equitable remedy will be administered as claims in bankruptcy: “Section 101(4)(B) … is intended to cause the liquidation or estimation of contingent rights of payment for which there may be an alternative equitable remedy with the result that the equitable remedy will be susceptible to being discharged in bankruptcy. For example, in some States, a judgment for specific performance may be satisfied by an alternative right to payment in the event performance is refused; in that event, the creditor entitled to specific performance would have a ‘claim’ for purposes of a proceeding under title 11.” 469 U.S. at 280, 105 S.Ct. at 708, quoting 124 Cong.Rec. 32393 (1978).
“The ability of a debtor to choose between performance and damages in some cases is not the same as a debtor’s liability for money damages for failing to satisfy an equitable obligation. See In re Chateaugay Corp., 944 F.2d 997, 1007 08 (2d Cir.1991). While section 101(5)(B) encourages creditors to select money damages from among alternative remedies, it does not require creditors entitled to an equitable remedy to select a suboptimal remedy of money damages.” Sheerin v. Davis (In re Davis), 3 F.3d 113, 115 (5th Cir. 1993).
Related posts: