Noble Supply & Logistics, LLC and its affiliated debtors filed a thirteen-page emergency motion on September 11, 2026 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware seeking an order compelling the Defense Logistics Agency to perform under executory contracts, enforcing the automatic stay, ordering the agency to cease all violations of the stay, and granting related relief. The cases are jointly administered before Judge Craig T. Goldblatt under Case No. 26-11369 and were filed on August 30, 2026.

The United States filed a fourteen-page objection on September 16, 2026. The court held a hearing the same day. On September 17, 2026 each side filed a certification of counsel attaching its own proposed form of order; the debtors' certification states that the parties conferred following the hearing but were unable to agree.

The motion describes the Defense Logistics Agency as the debtors' largest customer and states that through executory contracts with the agency the debtors supply the United States military and its allies with tactical gear, safety and construction equipment, and other goods necessary to drive and sustain warfighter readiness. Research Suite case data reports assets at filing of approximately $200 million, annual revenues of approximately $1.0 billion and 294 employees, in the wholesale trade industry. The motion gives the debtors' principal place of business as 1 Marina Park Drive, Suite 220, Boston, Massachusetts.

The motion states that all four are indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts obligating the debtors to supply an indefinite quantity over the full term, typically a one-to-ten-year period. The objection states that each of these is in fact a family of contract numbers and that the parties contract with multiple agency components, including a weapons support component and a troop support component.

How payment works

The motion states that agency payment obligations are governed by the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901–3905, and underlying Federal Acquisition Regulations, generally requiring payment within thirty days of receipt of a proper invoice under 31 U.S.C. § 3903(a)(1)(B). The debtors upload invoices to the agency's web-based invoicing platform. Each supplier has a unique commercial and government entity code, which the motion states the agency uses to control payments to its suppliers. An agency representative confirms proof of delivery to the government end user and proper submission, then instructs the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to remit payment.

The motion characterizes the agency's conduct as serial violations of the automatic stay reflecting a pattern of disregard for the debtors' rights, and states that the agency instituted a complete payment block on certain of the debtors' codes, preventing those debtors from receiving any payments from the agency.

The motion identifies invoices totaling $3,226,144.26 as subject to the block, all of which it states became due and owing on September 8 or 9, 2026. The supporting declaration explains that the invoice schedule was downloaded directly from the agency's invoicing platform on September 10, 2026 using the debtors' login credentials, then reformatted — converted from a text file, sorted, with invoices due after September 9, 2026 removed and certain columns deleted.

The motion identifies sections 105(a), 362(a) and 365 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules 9013 and 9014 as the statutory predicates. Its theory is that the contracts are executory because material performance remains due on both sides — the debtors' ongoing obligation to supply goods for the full term, and the agency's obligation to inspect and, if accepted, pay for goods supplied — that a counterparty may be compelled to perform pending assumption or rejection, that section 365(e) bars ipso facto termination or modification, and that contractual rights are property of the estate protected by section 362(a)(3) against interference. The motion reserves the right to seek further or additional relief against the agency.

The objection states three grounds: that the contracts at issue are not executory, that the amounts sought are not yet payable, and that the debtors owe undisputed prepetition debts to the United States that are subject to setoff for which the debtors have not provided adequate protection. The objection does not raise sovereign immunity, section 106, or the police and regulatory exception of section 362(b)(4).

On the procedural point the objection relies on the principle that section 542's turnover provision is not self-executing and contends the debtors cannot circumvent section 542 or the procedural requirements of the Bankruptcy Rules. On the stay point it relies on the rule that section 362(a)(3) prohibits affirmative acts that would disturb the status quo, and argues that a contrary reading would render section 542 superfluous, concluding that any temporary withholding of payments is not an affirmative act to disturb the status quo.

On timing, the objection states that many of the invoices cited by the debtors indicate they were received by the agency less than thirty days before the filing, and that the top two invoices, received August 24 and August 21, 2026, alone constitute $1,249,335 of the claimed $3,226,144.26. It separately flags a third invoice of $767,626.84 stated as received August 25, 2026. The objection also states that the Federal Acquisition Regulation disputes clause remains available to the debtors and that, although the debtors said in the first day declaration that they intend to appeal a termination for cause under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, the agency had received neither a certified claim nor notice of an appeal.

On setoff, the objection contends that a temporary refusal to pay a debt while preserving a right of setoff does not violate the automatic stay, that section 553(a) preserves setoff, that the United States possesses a common law right of setoff and is treated as a unitary creditor for mutuality purposes, and that section 542(b) does not require payment of a matured debt to the extent it may be offset under section 553. It states that the United States is not exercising setoff rights without court authorization and is preparing a motion to do so.

The objection states that the accounting service identifies the debtor through a single commercial and government entity code, that an administrative hold is in place with respect to amounts due for goods and services supplied before the petition date associated with that code, that the hold does not prevent the debtors from submitting invoices or requesting payment through the platform, and that no amounts have been set off, applied, transferred or otherwise used. It also states that because of the bankruptcy filing the agency has been stayed from issuing a modification reflecting the cancellation of 11,893 delivery orders under the aviation contract, cancellations the objection states were the subject of notifications dated July 17, August 17 and September 1, 2026.

The objection asserts two categories of claim by the United States against the debtors, which together exceed the amount the motion seeks.

The objection also states that the Department of Justice's estimated maximum potential False Claims Act recovery on approximately 500 investigated transactions at one air force base would exceed $7.8 million assuming liability, treble damages and full statutory penalties, and that those transactions did not comprise all transactions performed under the relevant contract, which involved thousands of transactions.

Both certifications of counsel attach a proposed order granting the motion. The debtors' certification states that their proposed order accurately reflects the court's rulings at the hearing, and that the parties are available for a status conference if the court has questions about the forms of order prior to entry. The provisions on which the two versions agree and disagree are set out below.

Where the versions agree

Both grant the motion, though the agency's version adds that the relief requested is granted to the extent modified as set forth in the order. Both require the agency to remit payment to the debtors in the ordinary course of business, with good-faith negotiation of any payment dispute before it is raised with the court. Both require the debtors to pay $537,672.89 to the Department of Justice on account of the settlement agreement, though the agency's version adds any accrued interest and ties the timing to the lifting of the block rather than to receipt of a fixed payment. Both authorize the debtors to take actions to effectuate the order, make it effective immediately notwithstanding Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h), deem notice sufficient, and retain exclusive jurisdiction.

Where they diverge

Two margin comments in the blackline record the agency's reasons. The first states that the Department of Justice has confirmed the block was lifted as of 1:30 p.m. on September 17, 2026. The second states that the Department is unable to agree or consent that the agency may have to remit payments outside the ordinary course of business as required by applicable federal law and regulations.

As of the last filing reviewed, no order had been entered on the motion. The competing certifications leave four questions unresolved on the face of the record.

Separately, the objection states that the United States is preparing a motion to exercise its setoff rights, and the debtors' proposed order anticipates such a motion. Neither version of the order purports to determine the validity or amount of the asserted claims.

The motion was filed on September 11, 2026, at which point no official committee of unsecured creditors had been appointed. The committee was appointed on September 16, 2026, the day of the hearing; counsel to the committee is not identified in the filings reviewed for this report.