Huntington National Bank v. Thomas Richardson, et al. (In re Cyberco Holdings Inc.)
- Citation:
- Huntington National Bank v. Thomas Richardson, et al. (In re Cyberco Holdings Inc.), Case No. 10-2537 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2013)
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The bankruptcy court's orders denying the motions to substantively consolidate two Chapter 7 bankruptcy estates were not final orders within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).
- Procedural context:
- The bank filed a motion for substantive consolidation of two Chapter 7 bankruptcy estates. The bankruptcy court denied the bank's motion and the bank filed a notice of appeal. Alternatively, the bank requested that its notice of appeal be considered a motion for leave to appeal. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") dismissed the bank's notice of appeal and denied the bank's motion for permission to appeal. The bank filed a notice of appeal of the BAP's order dismissing its appeal.
- Facts:
- The background of this case involved a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the late Barton Watson and others through two of Watson's companies. The companies' bank extended in excess of $16 million dollars. The loans were eventually paid down to $600,000. The loan payments were funded "by generating even more funds through the [debtor's] scam."
Eventually, both companies ended up in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Chapter 7 trustees pursued avoidance actions against the bank. As part of its response to the avoidance actions, the bank filed a motion in each bankruptcy case to substantively consolidate the assets, liabilities, and bankruptcy estates of the two chapter 7 debtors.
The bankruptcy court denied the motions and held, inter alia, that section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code did not provide bankruptcy courts with the authority to substantively consolidate a bankruptcy estate with other debtors or non-debtors. In the bankruptcy court's view, substantive consolidation amounted to a turnover proceeding, and trustees have exclusive authority to bring turnover actions.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit stated "that there are significant differences between the finality of an order that grants substantive consolidation and one that denies it." The Court noted that the "impact of an order denying substantive consolidation is relatively minor, and the upshot of it is that the parties will proceed to administration of the separate bankruptcy estates according to traditional rules." The Court drew an analogy between this situation and a situation where the court denies a motion for summary judgment.
The Court also held that the decision to permit an appeal of an order denying substantive consolidation ought to be made as a discretionary matter under section 158(a)(3), and that issue was not raised in the present appeal.
- Judge(s):
- The Honorable Deborah L. Cook, the Honorable Jane Branstetter Stranch, and the Honorable David M. Lawson (United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation).
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!
