Global Technovations, Inc. v. Onkyo USA Corp. (In re Global Technovations, Inc.), Case No. 02-40447

• Decision Date: 01 November 2011
• Docket Number: Adv. Pro. No. 03-5078,Case No. 02-40447,Case No. 01-64771
• Parties: In re: GLOBAL TECHNOVATIONS, INC., et al.,1Debtors. In re: ONKYO AMERICA, INC., Debtor. GLOBAL TECHNOVATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. ONKYO U.S.A. CORP., et al., Defendants.
• Court: United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Michigan

In re: GLOBAL TECHNOVATIONS, INC., et al.,¹Debtors In re: ONKYO AMERICA, INC., Debtor GLOBAL TECHNOVATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. ONKYO U.S.A. CORP., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 02-40447

Case No. 01-64771

Adv. Pro. No. 03-5078

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: November 1, 2011

Judge Thomas J. Tucker

(Jointly administered)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DEFENDANTS' MOTION

FOR APPROVAL OF REPLACEMENT BOND, RETURN

OF ORIGINAL BOND AND FOR CONTINUED STAY PENDING APPEAL

This adversary proceeding is before the Court on a motion by Defendants, entitled "Motion for Approval of Replacement Bond, Return of Original Bond and for Continued Stay Pending Appeal" (Docket # 297, the "Motion"). The Motion seeks (1) the return of a $7 million supersedeas bond ("First Bond") that Defendants filed with the clerk of the bankruptcy court after the bond was approved

Page 2

by the bankruptcy court in its October 15, 2010 order entitled "Agreed Order on Motion for Approval of Bond and for Stay Pending Appeal" (Docket # 295); (2) a stay, pending the Defendants' appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Court, of the bankruptcy court's June 30, 2010 judgment (Docket # 225) and the district court's March 31, 2011 opinion affirming the bankruptcy court's judgment (see Docket # 296); and (3) approval of a replacement bond for the First Bond, in support of the requested stay pending Defendants' appeal to the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Motion.

The Court concludes that a hearing on the Motion is not necessary. This Court must deny the Motion because, at this stage of the appeal process, the Defendants must seek a stay pending appeal in the district court, under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8017(b), or in the court of appeals, see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8017(c), rather than in the bankruptcy court. See, e.g., Mountain Empire Oil Co., Inc. v. Callahan (In re Lambert Oil Co., Inc.), 375 B.R. 197 (W.D. Va. 2007); Adell v. John Richards Homes Bldg. Co., L.L.C. (In re John Richards Homes Bldg. Co., L.L.C.), 320 B.R. 139 (E.D. Mich. 2005).² And to the extent the Motion seeks return of the first supersedeas bond that was filed with the clerk of the bankruptcy court, such relief can be ordered by the district court, as part of its process of approving a new bond, or by this Court if and when the district court has approved a new, replacement supersedeas bond.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (Docket # 297) is denied, without prejudice as stated.

Thomas J. Tucker

United States Bankruptcy Judge

1. This bankruptcy case is jointly administered with Case Nos. 02-43678 (In re On-Site Analysis, Inc.); 02-43680 (In re Top Source Oil Analysis, Inc.); 02-43682 (In re Top Source Automotive, Inc.); Case No. 02-43683 (In re ARCS Safety...