In re Quantegy, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 05-80042-DHW.
| Decision Date | 17 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 05-80042-DHW.,Adversary No. 05-8002-DHW. |
| Citation | 343 B.R. 689 |
| Parties | In re QUANTEGY, INC., et al.,<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> Debtors. Dorothy S. Grady, Mary Ann Hutchinson, et al., Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Quantegy, Inc., Defendant. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Quantegy, Inc., Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Cameron-RRL A. Metcalf, Espy, Metcalf & Poston, PC, Dothan, AL, for Debtor.
Mary E. Olsen, Gardner, Middlebrooks, Gibbons, Kittrell & Olsen, P.C., Mobile, Alabama, for Plaintiffs.
Max A. Moseley, Johnston, Barton, Proctor & Powell LLP, Birmingham, Alabama, for Creditors' Committee.
On January 19, 2005, the plaintiffs filed this class action complaint against Quantegy, Inc. for alleged violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2109. On March 29, 2005, Mary Ann Hutchinson, a named plaintiff, filed a timely class proof of claim in the underlying bankruptcy case. On May 5, 2005, the court granted the April 15, 2005 motion of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to intervene as a party defendant in this adversary proceeding (Doc. #29).
The committee filed a motion on December 27, 2005 (Doc. #40) to dismiss this adversary proceeding, to deny class certification, and for partial summary judgment. On January 3, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a (notion for summary judgment (Doc. #43).
The motions were set for hearing on January 30, 2006. At the hearing Max A Moseley appeared on behalf of the committee, and Mary E. Olsen and M. Vance McCrary appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs.
The court's jurisdiction in this adversary proceeding is derived from 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and from the United States District Court for this district's general order referring all title 11 matters to this court. Further, because this adversary proceeding is essentially a claim against the bankruptcy estate, this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) thereby extending this court's jurisdiction to the entry of a final order or judgment.
On and prior to December 31, 2004, the defendant was an employer as defined by the WARN Act. On that day the defendant closed its plant and laid off a sufficient number of its employees to invoke the "plant closure" and "mass layoff' provisions of the WARN Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 2101.
Prior to December 31, 2004, the defendant gave no notice to its employees of the impending plant closure or mass layoff. On December 31, 2004, the defendant issued the following statement to local authorities and for voice recording:
Quantegy Inc. has ceased operations pending restructuring. This is due to financial issues that have plagued the industry and Quantegy for some time. All employees are on lay off pending further notice.
Some essential staff will be required for safety and other functions. These individuals will be contacted directly.
In addition, on December 31, 2004, Quantegy posted a sign on its factory and office doors and on other entrance ways. The sign read:
Notice
Quantegy Inc. Factory and Headquarters are closed until further notice pending financial restructuring.
All Employees are on lay off pending further notice For information please call ______
Exhibit A, Committee's Objection To Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Under the WARN Act a covered employer may not order a plant closure or mass layoff without 60 days written notice to each affected employee. 29 U.S.C. § 2102(a). The plaintiffs contend that the defendant violated the WARN Act by failing to give the requisite 60 days notice.2
The defendant does not dispute the lack of prior notice to affected employees. The defendant contends that a reduced notice period was permissible under section 2102(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A) of the WARN Act.3
The plaintiffs respond that the defendant does not meet the requirements for relying on the exceptions provided by the Act. An employer relying on the exceptions must (1) give as much notice as is practicable and (2) at the time of notice "give a brief statement of the basis for reducing the notification period." 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(3). The plaintiffs contend that the defendant did not meet these requirements and therefore may not avail itself of the defenses provided by the Act.
The committee moves to dismiss this adversary proceeding on the ground that it is duplicative of the claims process and therefore a wasteful and inefficient means to determine the claims of affected employees. The committee argues that claims filed by affected employees under 11 U.S.C. § 501 will be allowed as filed unless objected to by a party in interest. See 11 U.S.C. § 502(a); Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 3001(f). The committee contends that the claims process is a more efficient method of determining employees' claims than is this adversary proceeding.
At first blush, the committees' contention is not without appeal. An objection to a claim is a contested matter governed by Fed. R. Bankr.Proc. 9014. Under that rule, most of the service and discovery rules applicable to adversary proceedings are also applicable to contested matters. Therefore, an adversary proceeding could be unnecessary as merely duplicative of the claims process.4
Yet, upon closer review, the court is of the opinion that this adversary proceeding should not be dismissed on that ground. This adversary proceeding is distinctive in that it was filed as a class action. Fed. R. Bankr.Proc. 23 (governing class actions) is applicable to an adversary proceeding. However, Rule 23 is not applicable to a contested matter. Fed. R. Bankr.Proc. 9014. Though the court can direct that Rule 23 apply to a contested matter, a claim does not become a contested matter unless and until an objection to the claim is filed. The filing of an adversary proceeding enables the creditor to invoke the provisions of Rule 23 without waiting for the debtor to object to its claim. Therefore, an adversary proceeding may be the most expeditious vehicle for processing this claim as a class action.
In addition, an adversary proceeding is maintained in a separate electronic file. The docket sheet for the underlying bankruptcy case of Quantegy, Inc. has almost 700 docket entries. From an administrative standpoint, the adversary proceeding is a convenient method of segregating the pleadings germane to the class proof of claim.
The court concludes that the motion to dismiss the instant adversary proceeding as duplicative of the claims process is due to be denied.
Next, the committee moves to deny class certification on the basis of untimeliness because the plaintiffs did not move for class certification prior to the bar date for filing claims. In effect, the committee argues that to allow participation in any distribution by non-named class members, who did not file timely claims, dilutes the recovery of other creditors who did.
However, the Eleventh Circuit has allowed class certification to proceed under facts very similar to those of the instant case. See In re The Charter Company, 876 F.2d 866 (11th Cir.1989). In Charter, the plaintiffs in federal class action securities litigation against the debtor filed a timely class proof of claim in the bankruptcy case. The debtor did not object to the claim for almost two years — well after the bar date for filing claims. After the debtor objected, the plaintiffs promptly moved for class certification.
The Eleventh Circuit held that class proofs of claim are allowable and that class certification after the bar date was permissible where the class had filed a timely claim. Id. The court also noted that, absent an adversary proceeding, a claimant has no opportunity to move for class certification until the debtor objects to the claim. See Charter, 876 F.2d at 874.
In the instant case, the claimants filed a timely class proof of claim. The claimants also filed this class action adversary proceeding only 9 days after the bankruptcy case was filed. The delay in seeking class certification was not due to any fault of the claimants but instead to an agreement reached between the parties.
Early in this proceeding and prior to the intervention of the committee, the parties suggested and the court agreed that the issue of class certification be deferred until after the issue of the defendant's liability was determined. All concurred that the assets of the estate would be wasted in litigating the issues surrounding class certification if the defendant ultimately prevailed on the issue of damages. Therefore, the delay in certification is not due to any fault of the plaintiffs, and it would be manifestly unjust as well as contrary to the law of the Eleventh Circuit to deny them the opportunity to certify the putative class.
Further, the court notes that the class representatives filed, prior to the claims bar date, claims on behalf of the putative class. The filing of these claims undercuts the committee's argument regarding the dilution of the claims of other creditors who filed timely claims. Here, although liability has yet to be determined, the class has filed a timely claim.
The committee also contends that an employee may not prosecute a WARN Act claim as a class action. In support of that contention the committee points to the holding of the court in Bailey v. Jamesway Corp. (In re Jamesway Corp.), 1997 Bankr.LEXIS 825, 1997 WL 327105 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1997). The Jamesway court examined the following language of the WARN Ac...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weekes–Walker v. Macon Cnty. Greyhound Park, Inc., Case No. 3:10–cv–895–MEF.
...because “[a]dopting this position would ... treat Congress' language in § 2102(b)(3) as meaningless”); In re Quantegy, Inc., 343 B.R. 689, 696 (Bankr.M.D.Ala.2006) (Williams, B.J.) (awarding plaintiff summary judgment on defendant's WARN Act defenses because notice provided by defendant emp......
-
In re First Magnus Financial Corp.
...WARN Act claims will be expedited and handled more efficiently in a class adversary proceeding . . . ." Id. at *3.); In re Quantegy, Inc., 343 B.R. 689 (Bankr. M.D.Ala.2006) (noting "the court is of the opinion that this adversary proceeding should not be dismissed on that ground [duplicati......
-
In re ABMD LIMITED
...the context of a former employer's bankruptcy case. See, e.g., Protected Vehicles, Inc., 397 B.R. 339; Grady v. Quantegy, Inc. (In re Quantegy, Inc.), 343 B.R. 689 (Bankr.M.D.Ala.2006). Because the Rule 23(a) prerequisites are met along with the predominance and superiority requirements of ......