Adeli v. Barclay (In re Berkley Delaware Court, LLC)

Citation:
9th Cir. Case No. 14-55854 (August 23, 2016)
Tag(s):
Ruling:
An appeal of a hybrid compromise/sale order was moot under § 363(m) where debtor did not obtain stay pending appeal and the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in determining that the creditor was a good faith purchaser of the debtor’s claims.
Procedural context:
Bankruptcy court granted a Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion to approve compromise and sale of claims. Debtor appealed the order to district court. Debtor did not seek a stay of the order. The district court dismissed the appeal as moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m). Debtor appealed again and the 9th Circuit affirmed.
Facts:
Chapter 7 Trustee reached a settlement of claims against a former secured creditor. The Debtor had sued the creditor in state court for fraud, and the creditor asserted a large deficiency claim and administrative claims. The settlement called for the creditor to pay $108,000 and release its claims against the estate. The compromise motion was also noticed as a sale motion under Section 363 subject to overbidding. The 9th Circuit agreed with the BAP in Mickey Thompson, 292 B.R. 415 (9th Cir. BA, 2003) and held that a bankruptcy court has the discretion to apply § 363 procedures to a sale of claims pursuant to a settlement approved under Rule 9019. Quoting the Fifth Circuit, “[a] compromise of a claim of the estate is in essence the sale of that claim to the defendant.” In re Moore, 608 F.3d at 264. . . We see no good reason why a trustee and the bankruptcy court cannot utilize the procedures of § 363 in certain settlements in order to ensure maximum value for the estate."
Judge(s):
Raymond C. Fisher, Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!

About us in numbers

3159 in the system

3040 Summarized

1 Being Processed