Mountain Glacier LLC v. Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc. (In re Mountain Glacier LLC)

Decision Date13 January 2017
Docket NumberAdv. No 3:16–ap–90113,Case No: 15–03817
Citation564 B.R. 314
Parties IN RE: MOUNTAIN GLACIER LLC, Debtor. Mountain Glacier LLC, Plaintiff, v. Nestle Waters North America, Inc. Defendant.
CourtU.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of Tennessee

WILLIAM L NORTON, III, DIANE ABBOTT, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, PO Box 340025, Nashville, TN 37203, 615 252–2397, Fax: 615–252–6397

ROBERT S HERTZBERG, DEBORAH KOVSKY–APAP, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, 4000 Town Center Suite 1800, Southfield, MI 48075–1505, 248–359–7333, Fax: 313–731–1556

JOHN HAYDEN ROWLAND, BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN ET AL, 211 Commerce Street Suite 800, Nashville, TN 37219, 615 726–5544, Fax: 615 744–5544

Memorandum Opinion
THE HONORABLE CHARLES M. WALKER, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

Before the court is the reorganized debtor, Mountain Glacier, LLC's (the "Debtor") adversary Complaint against Nestle Waters North America, Inc. ("Nestle") seeking declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 220. The Debtor seeks a determination as to whether the Debtor's confirmed plan of reorganization preserved its interest in and right to pursue a prepetition claim against Nestle. The Debtor now seeks summary judgment.

Jurisdiction

Nestle sought to withdraw the reference by motion to the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. In its order denying Nestle's motion to withdraw, the district court found that this matter is a "core proceeding" as it involved the interpretation of an order from another court. The district court declined to take on that task, and denied the motion to withdraw the reference. [ECF Doc. 53, at 3] Therefore, this court may conduct appropriate proceedings and enter a final order in this matter. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Background

The Debtor filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code1 on June 3, 2015 and filed its amended and restated plan of reorganization on February 15, 2016 (the "Plan"). This court entered an order confirming that Plan on February 17, 2016 (the "Order").

Prior to the commencement of this Chapter 11 case, the Debtor and Nestle were parties to an arbitration styled Nestle Waters North America, Inc. v. Mountain Glacier LLC , administered by Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services in Chicago, Illinois for which the arbitrator is Hon. Nan Nolan (the "Arbitration"). The Arbitration was stayed by the filing of the Chapter 11 petition. The Arbitration had been fully disclosed on Debtor's Schedule B, Personal Property, as a "contingent and unliquidated" claim.

Following the effective date of the Plan, the Debtor sought to further pursue its claims against Nestle in the Arbitration. Nestle responded by requesting dismissal of the Arbitration because the Order did not contain language sufficient to preserve the claims in the Arbitration. Failure to properly preserve the claims would trigger res judicata and prohibit the Debtor from further pursuing the Arbitration claims. The Debtor disputes this position and through this adversary proceeding, seeks declaratory judgment interpreting the Plan and Order.

Joint Pretrial Statement

The pretrial statement submitted jointly by the parties asserted the following legal issues:

1. Whether this matter is a core proceeding in which this Court may issue a final order.
2. Whether the Debtor's claims against Nestle in the Arbitration are barred, in whole or in part, for lack of jurisdiction.
3. Whether the Debtor's claims against Nestle in the Arbitration are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, laches and/or ratification.
4. Whether the Debtor's claims against Nestle in the Arbitration are precluded by the doctrine of res judicata by the entry of the Confirmation Order.
The Disclosure Statement and Plan

A determination of the above-referenced issues requires an examination and interpretation of the language and provisions subject to the Order, specifically, the relevant sections of the Disclosure Statement and the Plan. The Debtor's Disclosure Statement Accompanying Debtor's Amended Plan of Reorganization was filed December 9, 2015 [ECF Doc. 169], and provides in relevant part:

III. SUMMARY OF ASSETS
B. Accounts and Causes of Action.
***
The Debtor also has certain claims against parties in pending litigation that were in existence prior to the commencement of this case. These matters include a counterclaim asserted by the Debtor's principal, Jay Peterson, against State Bank of Herscher in district court litigation pending in the Central District of Illinois and a counterclaim asserted by the Debtor against Nestle Waters North America, Inc. in arbitration pending in Chicago, IL before Arbitrator Nan Nolan. Since the litigation of these actions were stayed as to the Debtor upon the commencement of this Chapter 11 case, these claims remain unliquidated and have unknown value.
***
IV. SUMMARY OF LIABILITIES
***
C. Unsecured Debt.
The Debtor's unsecured debt, as reflected on the Debtor's Schedules, is approximately $1,620,180.32. Most of the unsecured debt is outstanding trade obligations, with the largest claims being $207,331.00 owed to a related company, Evansville Bottling, and a disputed claim asserted by Nestle Waters in the amount of $581,642.26. Additionally the Debtor has unsecured deficiency claims owing to Herscher in the approximate amount of $3 million and BFS in the principal amount of $508,315.
V. LIQUIDATION ANALYSIS
For this Plan to be approved by the Court, a determination may be necessary that the Plan will provide to each creditor or equity security holder an amount, as of the Effective Date of the Plan, that is not less than the value of the property that each such creditor would receive or retain if all of the assets of the Debtor were sold and the proceeds thereof were distributed under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Since the Debtor is a service company, there is very little value in real or personal property. As stated above in Article III, the Debtor leases its real property and vehicles, thus leaving customer lists, inventory and accounts receivable as it primary assets of value. The book value of these assets is approximately $5 million and a liquidation value would be significantly less. Further, these assets are encumbered by the secured debt described in Article IV above in an amount that is greater than the liquidation value of these assets. In a liquidation, the assets would be liquidated and applied to the secured debt, leaving no distribution to the unsecured creditors and the equity interests.
VI. SUMMARY OF PLAN
A. Payment of Claims.
***
Class 5. Class 5 consists of all Allowed Unsecured Claims that are not otherwise included in another Class herein and shall include the unsecured deficiency claim of State Bank of Herscher and the Allowed Claim of Business Finance Services. Except as otherwise provided below, these Claims shall be paid in the aggregate amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the Allowed Unsecured Claim in ten (10) semi-annual installments paid without interest over a period of five years with the first installment beginning on June 30, 2016 and thereafter on December 31, 2016 and then semi-annually until a final installment on December 31, 2020.
***
D. Implementation of the Plan.
***
Upon Confirmation, the Reorganized Debtor will retain all Property of the Estate, including Causes of Action as defined in the Plan. The Reorganized Debtor will have the power and authority to settle and compromise any Cause of Action or any Disputed Claim without further notice or Court approval.
[ECF Doc. 169.]

The Debtor's Amended and Restated Plan ("Plan") dated February 9, 2016 [ECF Doc. 203] provides in relevant part:

ARTICLE II
DEFINITIONS
***
2.03 "Allowed Claim" shall mean payable under the Plan in the amount allowed for payment under the Bankruptcy Code. For the purposes of this Plan, a Claim will be deemed an Allowed Claim as follows: (i) the amount scheduled by the Debtors and not otherwise marked by the Debtor as being contingent, disputed or unliquidated, or (II) the amount evidenced by a proof of claim filed with the Court as of the Effective Date of the Plan. Any Claim or Administrative Expense that is the subject to an objection filed by any party in interest as to its amount shall not be an Allowed Claim in any amount for purposes of distribution until the objection has been resolved by agreement or final order.
***
2.07 "Causes of Action" shall mean all claims that the Debtor had as of the Effective Date of the Plan against any party, including, but not limited to claims against State Bank and Nestle Waters North America, Inc. in the litigation further described in Debtor's Disclosure Statement.
***2.22 "Property" shall mean all assets in which any Debtor has an interest as of the Effective Date of the Plan, plus, unless otherwise stated herein, assets acquired after the Date of Filing.
***
ARTICLE IV
TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CLAIMS AND U.S. TRUSTEE FEES
***
Class 5 Allowed Unsecured Claims
Class 5 shall consist of all Allowed Unsecured Claims that are not otherwise included in another Class herein and shall include the unsecured deficiency claim of State Bank of Herscher and the Allowed Claim of Business Finance Services. Except as otherwise provided below, these Claims shall be paid in the aggregate amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the Allowed Unsecured Claim in ten (10) semi-annual installments paid without interest over a period of five years with the first installment beginning on June 30, 2016 and thereafter on December 31, 2016 and then semi-annually until the final installment on December 31, 2020.
***
ARTICLE VIII
MEANS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN
***
8.02 Transfer of Assets. As of the Effective Date of the Plan and except as otherwise provided herein, all Property of the Debtor will be transferred to the Reorganized Debtor free and clear of all claims, including the Causes of Action except as otherwise provided herein.
***
ARTICLE IX
GENERAL PROVISIONS
***
9.02 Retention of Claims. Pursuant to § 1123(b)(3)(B) of
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • In re Forum Health
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 27 Agosto 2020
    ...is a "core" proceeding. See, Gray v. CPF Associates, LLC, 614 B.R. 96, 104-105 (D. Ariz. 2020); In re Mountain Glacier, LLC, 564 B.R. 314, 320 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2017). Moreover, the Final Decree and Order Closing Chapter 11 Cases states: "This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT