Bgi creditors liquidating trust
Bgi creditors liquidating trust - Teen dirty chat
In those orders, the Bankruptcy Court found that the Plan was substantially consummated, and (1) denied the motion of Appellants Eric Beeman and Jane Freij for leave to file untimely proofs of claim; (2) rejected and discharged Appellant Robert Traktman's untimely proof of claim; and (3) denied as moot the motion for class certification pursued by all three Appellants, none of whom appeared in the case until after the Plan was confirmed.
Neither Beeman, Freij, nor Traktman moved for a stay of the Plan in tandem with their efforts to file late claims and certify a class. Its conclusion rested in part on its determination that the Plan had been substantially consummated. It then denied as moot the motion for class certification. Appellants timely sought district court review of these orders. It was developed judicially "in response to the particular problems presented by the consummation of plans of reorganization under Chapter 11," in which "the need for finality, and the need for third parties to rely on that finality," is of paramount importance. Equitable mootness is a "pragmatic" doctrine, one that is "grounded in the notion that, with the passage of time after a judgment in equity and implementation of that judgment, effective relief on appeal becomes impractical, imprudent, and therefore inequitable." Deutsche Bank AG v. (In re Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.), 416 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir.2005) (quoting MAC Panel Co. In our Circuit, a bankruptcy appeal is presumed equitably moot when the debtor's reorganization plan has been substantially consummated. "Substantial consummation," as defined by section 1101(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, requires "(A) transfer of all or substantially all of the property proposed by the plan to be transferred; (B) assumption by the debtor or by the successor to the debtor under the plan of the business or of the management of all or substantially all of the property dealt with by the plan"; and, finally, "(C) commencement of distribution under the plan." 11 U. In such a liquidation, affected parties may have devoted months of time and resources toward developing an acceptable plan; creditors with urgent needs may have been stayed from accessing assets and funds to which they are entitled; and extensive judicial resources may have been consumed. Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1) "gives the court the discretion to enlarge the time to file claims `where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.'" BGI I, 476 B. A full recitation of the facts may be found in the Bankruptcy Court and District Court opinions. Appellees BGI Creditors' Liquidating Trust (the "Trust") and the Liquidating Trustee objected to both motions. The Bankruptcy Court similarly disallowed and expunged Traktman's untimely claim. The doctrine of "equitable mootness" provides an analytical basis for dismissing certain appeals from bankruptcy court orders. 4 (5th Cir.2001) (explaining that the need for the doctrine "normally arises where a Chapter 11 reorganization plan is at issue"). See MAC Panel, 283 F.3d at 625 ("[The doctrine's] application does not employ rigid rules."). We see no principled reason, in a Chapter 11 liquidation proceeding, for denying a court discretion to apply the doctrine of equitable mootness and the corresponding Chateaugay analysis. On November 2, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court denied the stay motion and authorized the First Interim Distribution to general unsecured creditors pursuant to the Plan.7. We recite only those facts necessary to this appeal. With its goal changing from reorganization to liquidation, in November 2011 Borders filed a Chapter 11 liquidation plan under section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code, together with the required Disclosure Statement, which is designed to permit interested parties to evaluate the proposed plan. Then, joined by Appellant Traktman (who had simply filed a late claim without authorization), they asked the court to certify a class of all holders of Borders gift cards issued prepetition (the "Class Certification Motion"). Because the question has not yet been decided by our Court, however, we address it briefly here. Parker Interests (In re Grimland, Inc.), 243 F.3d 228, 231 & n. It admits of considerable flexibility, and its application depends on, and varies according to, the specific factors presented in a particular case. The presumption of equitable mootness created by a plan's substantial consummation can be overcome by an objector, however, if the five factors set out in our decision in Frito Lay, Inc. An analysis of these factors requires a court to "examine the actual effects of the requested relief," In re Charter Commc'ns, 691 F.3d at 482, and accounts for context-specific aspects of a given bankruptcy, see Chateaugay II, 10 F.3d at 949-50. On that date, Appellants filed a motion to stay interim distributions to creditors pending the District Court's adjudication of their appeals. Consequently, we leave to a future panel of our Court the question whether a district court may also invoke equitable mootness in the context of a Chapter 7 liquidation.14. The District Court found that Appellants had met their burden with respect to the first Chateaugay factor — whether the court "can still order some effective relief" — because it was theoretically possible to grant Appellants the relief they sought by providing some notice to those gift card holders who were identifiable (a subset of uncertain magnitude), and reopening the claims-filing period. As noted above, the instant appeal arises in the context of a Chapter 11 liquidation. Copies of the Plan, Confirmation Order, and Notice of Effective Date are available by clicking the appropriate links on the left.
For further information on the Chapter 11 case, please visit the Court’s website at https://uscourts.gov/, where the official docket can be accessed through the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (“CM/ECF”) system. (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 10 F.3d 944 (2d Cir.1993) ("Chateaugay II") — which governs our Circuit's equitable mootness analysis in Chapter 11 reorganizations — also governs our mootness analysis in Chapter 11 liquidations. In February 2011, Borders and certain of its affiliates filed voluntary petitions for relief through reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On September 20, 2011, Borders closed the last of its retail branches. The Bankruptcy Court approved Borders' proposals for soliciting votes on the Plan, disseminating the Disclosure Statement, and giving notice of the Plan confirmation hearing. No Appellant filed an objection to the Plan before the confirmation hearing and none appeared at the hearing, which took place as scheduled, on December 20. Pursuant to the Plan, holders of general unsecured claims were entitled to vote to accept or reject the Plan. Although "the central purpose of Chapter 11 is to facilitate reorganizations rather than liquidations (covered generally by Chapter 7), Chapter 11 expressly contemplates liquidations." Florida Dep't of Revenue v. Each Appellant holds an unused consumer gift card issued by Borders, the now-defunct retail bookstore chain. After filing its February 2011 petition, Borders attempted to reorganize as a going concern, but those efforts were unsuccessful, and in July 2011, the Bankruptcy Court authorized Borders to proceed under Chapter 11 to liquidate substantially all of its assets and completely close the chain of stores. The Liquidating Trustee and the Liquidating Trust Committee were selected by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, in consultation with the Debtors. On review, the District Court accepted the Bankruptcy Court's determination that the Plan was substantially consummated and accordingly found Appellants subject to a presumption that their appeals were equitably moot. at 483, under which we examine conclusions of law de novo and findings of fact for clear error, see Highmark Inc. These cases suggest that the doctrine of equitable mootness has already been accorded broad reach, without apparent ill effect. and its affiliates ("Borders" or "Debtors") seek to vacate a May 28, 2013 judgment of the District Court (Andrew L.