In re 15375 Memorial Corp. v. Bepco, L.P.
| Decision Date | 22 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-1432.,No. 09-1608.,No. 09-1391.,09-1391.,09-1432.,09-1608. |
| Parties | In re 15375 MEMORIAL CORPORATION, et al., Santa Fe Minerals, Inc., Debtors/Appellants in 09-1391, Cross-Appellees in 09-1432, Cross-Appellees in 09-1608 v. BEPCO, L.P., f/k/a Bass Enterprises Production Company, Appellee in 09-1391, Intervenor/Cross-Appellee in 09-1432, Intervenor/Appellant in 09-1608 Global Santa Fe Corporation; Global Santa Fe Corporation Services, Inc.; Entities Holdings, Inc., Intervenors/Appellees in 09-1391, Intervenors/Appellants in 09-1432, Intervenors/Appellees in 09-1608. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
John D. Demmy (Argued) Stevens & Lee, Wilmington, DE, for 15375 Memorial Corp. and Santa Fe Minerals, Inc.
Gregory W. Werkheiser (Argued) Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, DE, for BEPCO L.P., f/k/a Bass Enterprises Production Co.
Philip G. Eisenberg (Argued) Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, Houston, TX, Kevin J. Mangan, Francis A. Monaco, Jr., Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Wilmington, DE, for Global Santa Fe Corp., Global Santa Fe Corporate Services Inc., and Entities Holdings, Inc.
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This appeal asks us to determine whether Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions filed by Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. and 15375 Memorial Corporation (together, the "Debtors") were filed in good faith. There is ample evidence to support the finding of the District Court that the Debtors' bankruptcy petitions served no valid bankruptcy purpose and were used primarily as a litigation tactic to protect the Debtors and their parent companies from liability in pending litigations. Thus, we will affirm the District Court's order dismissing the bankruptcy petitions for lack of good faith.1
The Debtors raise two issues in this appeal. First, they argue that the District Court incorrectly exercised plenary review, instead of review for an abuse of discretion, of the good faith inquiry. Second, they argue that the District Court erred in concluding that they did not file their bankruptcy petitions in good faith.2
The historical and narrative facts in this case are not disputed. The District Court, finding no clear error in the Bankruptcy Court's findings of fact, adopted those facts for the purposes of its decision, BEPCO, L.P. v. 15375 Mem'l Corp. (In re 15375 Mem'l Corp. III), 400 B.R. 420, 423 n. 4 (D.Del.2009), and we do so as well. These facts were ascertained during a three-day trial held by the Bankruptcy Court to decide several motions, including a motion by Bass Enterprises Production Co. ("BEPCO") to dismiss the Debtors' Chapter 11 petitions for lack of good faith. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. v. BEPCO, L.P. (In re 15375 Mem'l Corp. I), 382 B.R. 652, 658 (Bankr.D.Del.2008).
The parties in this case are all companies involved in oil and gas exploration. The Debtors, 15375 Memorial Corporation ("Memorial") and Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. ("Santa Fe"), are both subsidiaries of GlobalSantaFe Corporation ("GSF"). Id. at 660. Both subsidiaries list the address of the U.S. headquarters for GSF, 15375 Memorial Drive, Houston, Texas, as their address. Id. Neither company, however, actually has offices at that address or at any other location. Id.
Memorial is a holding company incorporated in Delaware and is the immediate parent of Santa Fe. Id. It has no employees and engages in no business other than acting as the sole shareholder of Santa Fe. Id. In June 2001, Memorial voluntarily dissolved, but that dissolution was revoked in June 2004 "under the advice of counsel[.]" Id.
Santa Fe was an oil and gas exploration company incorporated in Wyoming. Id. On December 8, 2000, id. at 663, it filed for dissolution under Wyoming law, id. at 660. At that time, "Santa Fe's assets were upstreamed to [GSF and related entities] or other of the Debtors' affiliates[.]" Id. at 662. "Santa Fe's dissolution [permits] it ... to act only through its sole shareholder Memorial, in furtherance of winding up its remaining business." Id. at 660. It "currently has no officers, directors or employees and engages in no business." Id. Despite its December 8, 2000, dissolution, Santa Fe did not publish notice of that dissolution until August 4, 2006. Id. at 663. As a result, Santa Fe may not have been able to avail itself of the Wyoming state law statute of limitations defense for dissolved corporations until August 4, 2009. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 17-16-1407 ().3
GSF is a Cayman Islands corporation that indirectly owns Memorial and Santa Fe. In re 15375 Mem'l Corp. I, 382 B.R. at 660-61. It also owns numerous other companies (collectively, including GSF, the "GSF Entities"), including Entities Holdings, Inc. ("EHI") and GlobalSantaFe Corporate Services, Inc. ("GSFCSI"). Id. The GSF Entities, together with Memorial and Santa Fe, are "one of the world's largest offshore oil and gas drilling contractors and a leading provider of drilling services." Id. at 660.
EHI is a wholly owned, direct subsidiary of GSF. Id. It is the parent and sole shareholder of Memorial, id. at 660-61, and it also owns several other subsidiaries, id. at 661. EHI is a holding company and has no employees. Id.
GSFCSI is a wholly owned, indirect subsidiary of GSF. Id. It provides corporate services to Memorial, Santa Fe, and the GSF Entities. Id. GSFCSI, among other things, maintains the Debtors' books and records. Id.
David E. Faure, the vice president and assistant secretary of Memorial, was charged with marshaling the Debtors' assets prior to the filings of their bankruptcy petitions, dealing with the Debtors' liabilities, and working on the Debtors' bankruptcy cases. Id. Aside from handling these tasks, Faure held other important decision-making responsibilities at GSFCSI, EHI, and Memorial. Id. He was "employed by GSFCSI as vice president, assistant general counsel and assistant secretary." Id. As an employee of GSFCSI, Faure provided "legal services to EHI, primarily assisting it with the defense of litigation." Id. "[He] also serve[d] as vice president and assistant secretary of both Memorial and EHI." Id.4 In carrying out his various duties, Faure reported to and took direction from James L. McCullough, the senior vice president and general counsel of GSF. Id. Although McCullough had no formal title at Santa Fe or Memorial, Faure had to receive McCullough's approval before he could file the Debtors' bankruptcy petitions.5 Faure consulted McCullough while preparing the Debtors' bankruptcy petitions. Id. Faure also sought legal advice from McCullough regarding Memorial on matters unrelated to bankruptcy prior to filing its bankruptcy petition. Id.
As part of Faure's effort to marshal the Debtors' assets, he oversaw the recovery of funds from the GSF Entities for the benefit of the Debtors' estates. Id. This included seeking recovery of funds that were "upstreamed to EHI and Memorial after Santa Fe's dissolution." Id. After an initial investigation, though, Faure determined that the Debtors' potential claims against the GSF Entities were not viable. Id. Faure's determination is unsurprising considering that he also testified that "he [did] not think [the claims against the GSF Entities] `[we]re very good claims.'" Id. "Faure further testified that filing a lawsuit against [GSF] on behalf of the Debtors to facilitate the return of upstreamed funds would jeopardize his job." Id.
BEPCO is a limited partnership that is, among other things, challenging the Debtors' bankruptcy petitions for lack of good faith. Its involvement in the Debtors' bankruptcies stems from a property of which BEPCO and Santa Fe are both in the chain of title, a 1938 mineral lease of land in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana (the "Tebow Property"). Both companies have been accused of contaminating the Tebow Property. Id. at 663-66. On April 27, 2007, BEPCO filed proofs of claim in the Bankruptcy Court asserting a right to recover against the Debtors and the GSF Entities all obligations and damages arising out of or related to litigation concerning the Tebow Property. Id. at 666.
On April 18, 2005, individuals affected by the contamination of the Tebow Property (the "Tebow Plaintiffs") filed suit in Louisiana state court naming Santa Fe, BEPCO, and others as defendants, seeking $320 million for the contamination (the "Tebow Action"). Id. at 663-64. The Tebow Plaintiffs alleged that "water produced from oil wells [on the Tebow Property] was disposed of in unlined earthen pits on their property[;] this water contained salt and dangerous minerals, metals, and radioactive materials, and the contamination migrated both horizontally and vertically into the surrounding soil and ground water." Id. Some of the pollutants entered and contaminated a drinking water aquifer. Id. at 663-64.
As a result of trial preparation, the Debtors learned that the Tebow Plaintiffs' "[e]xpert [r]eports indicated that[] the worst contamination on the Tebow Property occurred in the East Pit area—an area located on the 1938[m]ineral [l]ease for which both BEPCO and Santa Fe were in the chain of title." Id. at 664. They also learned from the work of their own expert and that of the Tebow Plaintiffs' expert, that the East Pit was probably constructed after 1965 and that BEPCO assigned the 1938 mineral lease to a different company in 1964. Id. Thus, Santa Fe ascertained that BEPCO's liability for contamination caused by the East Pit was likely to be less than companies like it, i.e., companies that used the Tebow Property after 1964. Id. In short, Santa Fe "knew that the [e]xpert [r]eports showed that it, not BEPCO, was to blame for pollution around the East Pit." Id. Santa Fe also learned that the contamination caused to the drinking water aquifer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re LTL Mgmt., LLC
...purpose and (2) whether the petition is filed merely to obtain a tactical litigation advantage." 15375 Mem'l Corp. v. BEPCO, L.P. (In re 15375 Mem'l Corp.) , 589 F.3d 605, 618 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing In re SGL Carbon , 200 F.3d 154,165 (3d Cir. 1999) ). "[T]he ‘good faith’ filing requirement......
-
In Re South Beach Securities Inc.
...348, 355, 53 S.Ct. 142, 77 L.Ed. 355 (1932) (Cardozo, J.); 7 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 1112.07; see also In re 15375 Memorial Corp., 589 F.3d 605, 625-26 (3d Cir.2009); In re Dixie Broadcasting, Inc., 871 F.2d 1023, 1026-28 (11th Cir.1989). The bankruptcy judge and the district judge ......
-
In re Olick
...that election through April 28, 2006. I turn next to the mixed fact-law and legal issues. See generally In re 15375 Memorial Corp. v. Bepco, L.P., 589 F.3d 605, 616 (3d Cir.2009) (discussing distinction among "basic" facts, "inferred" facts, and "ultimate facts" and referring to ultimate fa......
-
In re Brown
...any bankruptcy case is filed in bad faith depends upon the totality of the circumstances. See, e.g., In re 15375 Memorial Corp. v. Bepco, L.P., 589 F.3d 605, 618 (3d Cir. 2009). While the totality of the circumstances approach is not constrained to any particular fact pattern, the Third Cir......
-
LTL Management, LLC Bankruptcy Dismissed (Again)
...a tactical litigation advantage.” In re LTL Mgmt., LLC, 64 F.4th 84, 100-01 (3d Cir. 2023) (citing In re 15375 Mem’l Corp. v. BEPCO, L.P., 589 F.3d 605, 618 (3d Cir. 2009) and In re Integrated Telecom Express, Inc., 384 F.3d 108, 119-20 (3d Cir. 2004)). The Third Circuit held that the Debto......
-
Third Circuit Dismisses J&J Affiliate LTL's Talc Liability Chapter 11 Filing; "Good Faith" Under 1112(b) Requires Financial Distress
...at *1. 13. See In re SGL Carbon Corp., 200 F.3d 154, 159-62 (3d Cir. 1999) ("SGL Carbon"). 14. See In re 15375 Mem'l Corp. v. Bepco, L.P., 589 F.3d 605, 618 (3d Cir. 2009) ("Bepco"); In re Integrated Telecom Express, Inc., 384 F.3d 108, 118 (3d Cir. 2004) ("Integrated 15. SGL Carbon, 200 F.......
-
Putting With a Pitching Wedge: Indiscriminating Termination of the Automatic Stay
...262, 283 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2021).145. See infra note 155.146. E.g., Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. v. BEPCO, L.P., (In re 15375 Memorial Corp.), 589 F.3d 605, 618 (3d Cir. 2009) ("Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions are 'subject to dismissal under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) unless filed in good faith and the......
-
The Limited Lifespan of the Bankruptcy Estate: Managing Consumer and Small Business Reorganizations
...Cir. 1999).265. Id. at 165-66 (lack of good faith where "absence of a valid reorganizational purpose"); see In re 15375 Memorial Corp., 589 F.3d 605, 618-19 (3d Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal of petitions because "Debtors were not seeking Chapter 11 protection of a valid bankruptcy purpose......
-
The Objective and Jurisdictional Origins of Chapter 11's Good Faith Filing Requirement.
...of factors, rather than any single datum, controls resolution of" the good faith filing issue); In re 15375 Mem'l Corp. v. Bepco, LPP, 589 F.3d 605, 618 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2009) (observing that "[a]lmost every federal Court of Appeals follows some variation of" the totality of the circumstances"......
-
The Texas Two-step: How Corporate Debtors Manipulate Chapter 11 Reorganizations to Dance Around Mass Tort Liability
...Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 287 (1991)).68. Mullins, supra note 66.69. 15375 Mem'l Corp. v. BEPCO, Inc (In re 15375 Mem'l Corp.), 589 F.3d 605, 618 n.7 (3d Cir. 2009); see also, e.g., Marsch, 36 F.3d at 828 (test is 'whether a debtor is attempting to unreasonably deter and harass credit......