The opinion of the court was delivered by: John F. Grady, United States District Judge
Capital Factors, Inc. appeals from four final orders of the bankruptcy court that authorized Kmart to pay certain prepetition obligations. For the reasons explained below, the bankruptcy court's orders are reversed.
On January 22, 2002, Kmart Corporation and certain of its domestic subsidiaries and affiliates, debtors and debtors-in-possession (collectively, "Kmart") filed a voluntary petition for reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. As part of its "first day motions" filed on that date, Kmart sought authority to pay prepetition obligations to certain "critical vendors" (the "Critical Vendors Motion") and certain foreign vendors (the "Foreign Vendors Motion"). Kmart contended that these payments were necessary to maintain relationships essential to its continued operation and reorganization, and it invoked the "doctrine of necessity" and 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a) for the bankruptcy court's authority to permit these payments.
The same day, the bankruptcy court held a hearing and heard evidence on these motions. Appellant Capital Factors, Inc. ("Capital") objected to both motions. (Capital is a factoring agent*fn1 for a number of Kmart's apparel suppliers, and it holds general unsecured claims against the bankruptcy estate of approximately $20 million.)
Regarding the Critical Vendors Motion, the court stated:
Motions to pay certain critical trade creditors always
present difficult questions for courts. We're seeing
more and more of them, and our problem is that we have
to stretch to find some authority to do them.
However, I, after hearing this testimony and reading
the affidavit [of Charles C. Conaway, Kmart's Chief
Executive Officer], am convinced that Fleming,
Handleman and the egg and dairy vendors — and I
would like a list oil the specific vendors that you
would like included in this motion — as well as
the advertising concerns, are necessary to keep this
business going as' a going concern.
(App. to Appellee's Brief, Ex. 4A, at 162.) Accordingly, the bankruptcy court granted the Critical Vendors Motion. Without reciting specific findings from the bench, the bankruptcy court also granted the Foreign Vendors Motion. (Id. at 173.) On January 25, the bankruptcy court entered written orders granting both motions.
On February 1 and 8, 2002, Kmart filed motions seeking authority to pay issuers of prepetition letters of credit (the "Letters of Credit Motion") and prepetition claims of certain liquor vendors (the "Liquor Vendors Motion"). On February 13, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on these motions, heard evidence, and granted both motions over Capital's objections. Regarding the Letters of Credit Motion, the court stated:
Because the foreign vendors are integral to the
reorganization of this Debtor and the Court already ruled
on the payment of certain foreign vendors as part of the
critical vendors motions and I believe that this is just
a component of that particular transaction, and further
finding that I may be inconsistent if I do not grant the
relief that is requested here, I am going to go ahead and
sign your order authorizing the reimbursement of the
obligations to the issuers of Letters of Credit.
(Id., Ex. 4B, at 251.) The bankruptcy court also granted the Liquor Vendors motion, "finding that there [was] a good business justification for it." (Id. at 269.) Written orders granting the motions were entered that same day.
Capital filed notices of appeal from each order, and we granted Capital's motion to consolidate the appeals. The parties' briefing is complete, and we heard oral argument on the appeals as well.
This court has jurisdiction over the instant appeals pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(1). On appeal from an order of the bankruptcy
court, we review the bankruptcy court's factual findings under a
"clearly erroneous" standard and its conclusions of law de novo. See In
re Smith, 286 F.3d 461, 464-65 (7th Cir. 2002); F.R.Bankr.P. 8013.
Capital raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a) or the "doctrine of necessity" provides a bankruptcy court with either statutory authority or equitable power to allow the payment of selected prepetition unsecured trade claims prior to confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan*fn2
; (2) whether there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the bankruptcy court to allow payment of certain prepetition claims; and (3) whether state laws prohibiting liquor wholesalers from selling products to Chapter 11 debtors legally unable to pay their prepetition debt are invalid or unenforceable to the extent that they conflict with the Bankruptcy Code.*fn3
Kmart raises the additional issue of whether Capitol's appeals are moot because Kmart has already paid a substantial portion of the prepetition claims.
A. The Bankruptcy Court's Power Under § 105
We first examine the question of whether the bankruptcy court had the power to authorize the pre-plan payment of prepetition claims. The court relied on 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a) to authorize the payments. Section 105(a) ...