Kipperman v. Onex Corp.
Decision Date | 13 August 2009 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-1242-JOF. |
Citation | Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 411 B.R. 805 (N.D. Ga. 2009) |
Parties | Richard M. KIPPERMAN, Plaintiff, v. ONEX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Benjamin Aaron Lee, Daniel James King, Catherine M. O'Neil, King & Spalding, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Catherine Steege, Avid M. Greenwald, Joel Pelz, Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Alan W. Kornberg, Christopher D. Frey, Maria T. Vullo, Moses Silverman, Philip G. Barber, Samuel E. Bonderoff, Stacey A. Shortall, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, New York, NY, Dan Foster Laney, III, Richard H. Sinkfield, Phillip S. McKinney, Rogers & Hardin, Thomas Samuel, Michael Peter Carey, Bryan Cave Powell Goldstein, Constance Melissa Ewing, Atlanta, GA, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
The instant matter is before the court on the Trustee's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment[620]; the Onex Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment[621]; and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Post-Hearing Submission on Daubert Issues[639].
The instant action arises out of Magnatrax Corporation("Magnatrax") and its subsidiaries' (collectively "the Debtors") bankruptcy in 2003 in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court following a number of leveraged buyouts ("LBOs") involving Magnatrax, its predecessor entity American Building Company("ABCO") and Onex Corporation("Onex").
The Plaintiff in this matter is Richard M. Kipperman, not individually but solely in his capacity as Trustee for the Magnatrax Litigation Trust ("the Trust").The court will refer to Plaintiff as "the Trustee."The Trust was established during Magnatrax's bankruptcy pursuant to the Litigation Trust Agreement and the Magnatrax Debtors' Fifth Amended and Restated Joint Plan of Reorganization Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code("the Plan").
The Defendants in this matter include Onex, various entities associated with Onex (referred to collectively as "the Onex entities"), and individuals who serve or have served as officers for Onex or the Onex entities.Onex is a publicly traded private equity firm with its principal place of business in Toronto, Ontario.Onex makes money by buying or acquiring businesses, improving their value and selling them at a profit, and by charging management fees to its subsidiaries.Onex engages in the practice of acquiring businesses through leveraged buyouts.Onex explains its leveraged buyout business model in part in its annual reports as follows:
In completing acquisitions, it is generally Onex's policy to finance a large portion of the purchase price with debt provided by third-party lenders.This debt is assumed by the company acquired and is without recourse to Onex—the Parent Company—or its subsidiaries or partnerships.The foremost consideration, however, in developing a financing structure for an acquisition is to identify the appropriate amount of equity to invest.In Onex's view, that is the amount of equity which maximizes the risk/reward equation for both Onex and the acquired company; in other words the amount which allows the acquired company to not only manage its debt but also have significant financial latitude for business to vigorously pursue its growth objectives.
While we seek to maximize the risk/reward equation in all acquisitions, there is risk that the acquired company will not generate sufficient profitability or cash flow to service its debt requirements.If such circumstances arise, the recovery of Onex's equity and any other investment in that subsidiary is at risk.
The following Defendants are "Onex entities": Onex ABCO Limited Partnership("Onex LP"), 1354495 Ontario, Inc.("Ontario"), Onex American Holdings, LLC("Onex American"), 302733 Nova Scotia, Inc.("Nova Scotia"), Onex ABCO Finance, LLC("Onex Finance I"), Onex ABCO Finance II, LLC("Onex Finance II"), and OMI Partnership Holdings, LTD("OMI").1
Gerald Schwartz founded Onex in 1983; he is the company's President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board of Directors, and majority shareholder.Schwartz holds the right to elect six out of the ten members of the Board of Directors of Onex Corporation.Christopher Govan, Nigel Wright, and Mark Hilson were at all relevant times Managing Directors of Onex.Hilson and Wright also served as directors of Magnatrax from May 11, 1999 through at least May 12, 1999.2All of these individuals reside in Canada.The court will refer to Onex, the Onex entities, Schwartz, Govan, Hilson, and Wright collectively as the "Onex Defendants."
Magnatrax and its various subsidiary entities including ABCO are not parties to this action; however, they feature prominently in the factual scenario underlying it.The company known as ABCO has been involved in the manufacture and marketing of metal building systems since ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
In re Brewery Park Associates
...the overpayment of senior creditors is violative of the fair and equitable standard; In re Walat Farms, Inc., 70 B.R. 330, 335 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1987).Id., 137 B.R. at 235 (paragraph numbers omitted); see also
Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 411 B.R. 805, 875 (N.D. Ga. 2009).12 Thus, "[i]t's undisputed that the 'fair and equitable' requirement encompasses a rule that a senior class cannot receive more than full compensation for its claims. Courts will deny confirmation if a plan... -
Weisfelner v. Blavatnik (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.)
...confidence in the company's future." Davidoff , 2005 WL 2030501, at *11 (rejecting an allegation of capital inadequacy where "sophisticated investors ... did not think that the company was undercapitalized"); see also
Kipperman v. Onex Corp. , 411 B.R. 805, 836–37 (N.D. Ga. 2009)("Courts should also recognize that 'a powerful indication of contemporary, informed opinion as to value comes from private investors who with their finances and time at stake, and with access to substantial professional... -
Hodges v. Fed.-Mogul Corp.
...In order to accept their claims as to the video's content, the court would have to rely on the "ipse dixit of the expert[s]," a rejected practice. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997); see also
Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 411 B.R. 805, 844 (N.D. Ga. 2009)(internal quotations and alterations omitted) ("The trial court's gatekeeping function requires more than simply 'taking the expert's word for it.' An expert must be able to explain step by step how and why he... -
Lubin v. Markowitz (In re Markowitz)
...allows a trustee to "'step into the shoes' of an unsecured creditor and void a transfer of an interest in the debtor's property that the unsecured creditor would have thepower to void under federal or state law."
Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 411 B.R. 805, 830 (N.D. Ga. 2009)(quoting In re Int'l Pharmacy & Discount II, Inc., 443 F.3d 767, 770 (11th Cir. 2005)). Under Georgia law a creditor may set aside a transfer that is fraudulent as to the creditor. O.C.G.A. § 18-2-74....
- Chapter 8 Expert Witnesses in Recurring Substantive Disputes in Bankruptcy Litigation
-
Chapter VIII Modern Issues
...2490179 (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 10, 2013).[838] Id.[839] Id. at *6-7.[840] Id. at *10 (citing In re Iridium, 373 B.R. at 348).[841] See, e.g., Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 411 B.R. 805 (N.D. Ga. 2009).[842] Kipperman,
411 B.R. 805.[843] Id. at 887.[844] Id. at 837 (quoting Iridium, 373 B.R. at 347) (internal quotations omitted).[845] Id. at 835-36 (quoting Iridium, 373 B.R. at 346) (internal quotations omitted).[846] LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Paloian,See, e.g., In re SemCrude L.P., 2013 WL 2490179 (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 10, 2013).[838] Id.[839] Id. at *6-7.[840] Id. at *10 (citing In re Iridium, 373 B.R. at 348).[841] See, e.g., Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 411 B.R. 805(N.D. Ga. 2009).[842] Kipperman, 411 B.R. 805.[843] Id. at 887.[844] Id. at 837 (quoting Iridium, 373 B.R. at 347) (internal quotations omitted).[845] Id. at 835-36 (quoting Iridium, 373 B.R. at 346) (internal quotations... -
Chapter V Affirmative Defenses
...Code authorizes the trustee to assert on their behalf.").[630] See In re Fin. Res. Mortgage Inc., 454 B.R. at 24 (holding in pari delicto doctrine does not apply to trustee avoidance action under § 548); Kipperman v. Onex Corp.,
411 B.R. 805, 881 (N.D. Ga. 2009); In re Fuzion Technologies Grp. Inc., 332 B.R. 225, 232 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2005) ("Hence, courts have found that the in pari delicto defense is inapplicable when a trustee brings an action under sections...