Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Farm Credit Services of America, FLCA v. William Howard Topp, aka Bill Topp, dba Bill Topp Farm, dba William Topp Farm

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 22-2577 · judgment August 2, 2023


Certiorari denied · February 20, 2024
Pre-decision estimate: 4% cert probability

Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, an Eighth Circuit decision below, and a business petitioner.

Question presented

One of the requirements to be met in a plan of reorganization proposed under Chapter 12 of Title 11 is that a secured creditor be paid the “present value” of its claim as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed. 11 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(5)(B)(ii). As in cases under Chapters 11 and 13, when payments under a Chapter 12 plan to a secured creditor occur over time, an appropriate interest rate should be applied to the principal amount to arrive at the required “present value” of the claim. See Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465, 473– 74 (2004). In Till, a Chapter 13 case, a plurality of this Court adopted a method to arrive at the appropriate interest on secured claims based on the state of the financial markets, circumstances of the bankruptcy estate, and the characteristic of the subject loan. 541 U.S. at 477. “Taking its cue from normal lending practices,” the Court adopted the “formula approach,” directing a bankruptcy court to determine first the widely-reported national prime rate at the time and, based on the circumstances, then adjust that rate based on risk, normally an enhancement between 1% to 3%. Id. at 480–81. The Question Presented is whether the formula approach method set forth in Till should also apply in Chapter 12 bankruptcy cases. Since Till, reported bankruptcy court decisions in Chapter 12 cases, including the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel [BAP] for the Tenth Circuit, reflect near unanimity—except for the decision at bar—in applying the

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Johannes Howard Moorlach
Whitfield & Eddy, PLC

For respondent
Ronald C. Martin
Day Rettig Martin, P.C.

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Feb 20 2024
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jan 31 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
  3. Jan 16 2024
    Waiver of right of respondent William Howard Topp to respond filed.
  4. Dec 18 2023
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 19, 2024)