Southmark Corp., In re
| Decision Date | 11 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-10320,96-10320 |
| Citation | 163 F.3d 925 |
| Parties | , Bankr. L. Rep. P 77,874, 13 Tex.Bankr.Ct.Rep. 22 In the Matter of SOUTHMARK CORPORATION, Debtor. SOUTHMARK CORPORATION, Appellant, v. COOPERS & LYBRAND; Thompson & Knight, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles W. Cunningham, Madonna Cournoyer, McKool Smith, Dallas, TX, Robert B. Krakow, John Edward Medosch, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Dallas, TX, for Appellant.
Judith Elkin, Haynes & Boone, Dallas, TX, Michael Svetkey Feldberg, John P. Stigi, III, Schulte, Roth & Zabel, New York City, for Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before JOLLY, JONES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal arises from a malpractice suit filed by Southmark Corporation ("Southmark") against Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P. ("Coopers"), the accountant to the court-appointed Examiner in Southmark's reorganization case under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Southmark filed suit in a Texas state court in April, 1995. Coopers removed the case to the bankruptcy court that had presided over Southmark's reorganization. In an unusual twist, Southmark did not perceive the bankruptcy court as a beneficial forum, so it moved for the court's mandatory abstention, or alternatively, for discretionary abstention or remand. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c) (1993). Coopers sought summary judgment, a motion the bankruptcy court granted while denying Southmark's challenges to the forum. On appeal, the district court affirmed. We hold that the state-law malpractice claim is a "core proceeding" in bankruptcy and that the bankruptcy court's earlier ruling requiring Coopers to disgorge part of its fees for breach of bankruptcy disclosure rules gives rise to issue preclusion but not necessarily to claim preclusion.
Southmark Corporation was a real estate investment trust that sponsored private and publicly syndicated real estate partnerships during the early 1980's. From 1982 until 1989 (shortly before Southmark declared bankruptcy), Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. ("Drexel") served as Southmark's primary investment banker, underwriter, securities broker and investment and financial advisor. Drexel was the underwriter for various Southmark offerings of junk bonds and preferred stock, totaling more than $1 billion.
During this period, Drexel was ostensibly underwriting high-yield bond issues for companies with the understanding that the companies would use the proceeds to purchase high-yield bonds from other Drexel clients. Southmark became involved in the Drexel scheme. In October, 1986, Southmark issued $400 million in junk bonds and $100 million in preferred stock and subsequently invested the bond proceeds and part of the preferred stock revenues in other junk bond securities.
As with many speculative ventures in the 1980's, the expanding balloon eventually burst. In April 1989, Southmark announced a $1 billion write-down of its asset values, wiping out shareholders' equity. A few months later, Southmark filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Eventually, the holders of Southmark's public debt received approximately 5 cents on the dollar in cash and securities in the reorganized Southmark that were projected at the time to be worth as much as 13 cents on the dollar.
Shortly after filing bankruptcy, Southmark requested the appointment of an Examiner to provide an unbiased, independent assessment of the propriety and practicality of pursuing litigation against third-parties. The court-appointed Examiner applied to the bankruptcy court to retain Coopers as the Examiner's accountant. Coopers was expressly directed by the court to investigate, among other things, Drexel's dealings with Southmark. Coopers disclosed at the time of its retention that it did some accounting work for Drexel, but the firm failed to disclose either the kind and degree of work it did for Drexel, or that Coopers did substantial auditing work for Drexel.
Drexel's parent company, reeling from reverses in the junk-bond market, filed bankruptcy in February 1990. Southmark alleges that Coopers did not satisfactorily investigate Drexel's exposure to claims based upon Southmark's ill-fated junk bond investments. A Coopers employee charged that he was removed from this aspect of the Southmark account when he recommended investigating claims against Drexel to his superiors and was ordered to desist because (unbeknownst Instead, Southmark focused its limited resources on seeking recovery against Michael Milken, the mastermind behind Drexel's junk bond operation, who, unlike Drexel, had not filed bankruptcy. Southmark developed claims against Milken that it asserts are identical to the claims it could have raised against Drexel if Coopers had completed its investigation. Southmark eventually reached a settlement agreement that could yield more than $20 million from the Milken settlement fund.
to Southmark) Drexel was one of Coopers' largest accounting clients. In the end, Coopers submitted a report to Southmark that downplayed the viability of these particular claims against Drexel. Southmark elected not to pursue these claims by filing a timely proof of claim in the Drexel bankruptcy case.
In April 1993, Galbally, then a Coopers employee, met with Southmark's general counsel and alleged that Coopers had thwarted his efforts to investigate the Drexel claims. Southmark thereupon filed a disgorgement motion in the bankruptcy court pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 9024, seeking reconsideration of the court's previous award of fees to Coopers for its work as the Southmark Examiner's accountant. After extensive discovery, briefing, and a hearing, the bankruptcy court awarded Southmark $585,042.48 in recovery from Coopers in a modified final order entered April 4, 1995.
Three days later, Southmark commenced the instant case in a Texas state court, alleging that Coopers held back from a full investigation of certain potential claims by Southmark against Drexel; failed to disclose this omission; and misrepresented its investigative efforts because Drexel was a large audit client of Coopers. Additionally, Southmark alleged that Coopers' failure to investigate deterred Southmark from pursuing potential claims against Drexel or filing a proof of claim in the Drexel bankruptcy. Southmark's state law causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation alleged that Coopers' conduct caused it to suffer damages, including the total fees it paid Coopers during its bankruptcy case and the amounts it would have recovered on timely claims against Drexel.
Coopers answered the state court petition and then removed the case to the federal district court, which referred the action to the same bankruptcy court that had conducted Southmark's bankruptcy and the disgorgement proceeding. 1 Southmark filed a motion for mandatory abstention, or, in the alternative discretionary abstention or remand based in part on the argument that the state law action was a non-core proceeding and therefore, abstention was required under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). Coopers moved for summary judgment. The bankruptcy court granted Coopers' motion and dismissed the action as barred by both collateral estoppel and res judicata; the court denied Southmark's abstention motion as moot without expressly addressing its merits.
On appeal by Southmark, the district court affirmed. Announcing its reasoning in open court, the district court found that Southmark's action presented a core proceeding and that the bankruptcy court had implicitly so found in its earlier order, and he affirmed the bankruptcy court's findings regarding preclusion. Southmark has appealed.
No factual findings of the bankruptcy court are contested on appeal. The conclusions of law of both the bankruptcy and district court are subject to de novo review. Criswell v. Hensley, 102 F.3d 1411, 1414 (5th Cir.1997).
Lurking like a troll beneath a bridge, procedural complexities bedevil a straight path to analysis of this case. That the bankruptcy court has some kind of jurisdiction over this malpractice action against court-appointed professionals is not in doubt. But what the Three procedural obstacles must be cleared before the merits discussion can proceed. First, although this court may review the bankruptcy court's decision not to abstain, our jurisdiction is an historical anomaly. For bankruptcy cases commenced after the 1994 amendments to the bankruptcy law, decisions either to abstain or not to abstain are not, with very limited exceptions, reviewable on appeal. 4 Southmark's case predates this amendment and was filed when decisions not to abstain were reviewable on appeal. 5 The standard on appeal is abuse of discretion. In re Howe, 913 F.2d 1138, 1143 n. 6 (5th Cir.1990).
court can do with its jurisdiction depends first on whether the malpractice case is a "core" bankruptcy matter or one that is "related to" Southmark's reorganization case. If the suit against Coopers is merely "related to" bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court was required to abstain from hearing it. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). 2 If, however, the controversy lies "at the core of the federal bankruptcy power," Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 71, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 2870-71, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982), the bankruptcy law permits but does not require abstention. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). 3 The root issue is as simple--and complex--as that
Second, we note, only to reject out of hand, Coopers' assertion that statutory abstention does not apply to cases removed to federal court on the basis of bankruptcy jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1452. There is no textual support in the statute for this position, only a handful of bankruptcy court opinions support...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Garza
...as it pertains to confirmation of a chapter 13 plan. § 157(b)(2)(L) ; see also In re Sierra , 560 B.R. at 300 ; In Re Southmark Corp. , 163 F.3d 925, 930 (5th Cir. 1999).11 This Court may only hear a case in which venue is proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1408. In their petition, Debtors list their resi......
-
Schmidt v. Villarreal (In re Oga Charters, LLC)
...estate" and "affect[s] ... the adjustment of the debtor-creditor ... relationship." § 157(b)(2)(A), (O); see also In Re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925, 930 (5th Cir. 1999).22 This Court may only hear a case in which venue is proper. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408, 1409. In its petition, Petitioning Credi......
-
In re Gutierrez
...Gen. Order 2012-6 (S.D. Tex. May 24, 2012).55 See 11 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (L).56 See Southmark Corp. v. Coopers & Lybrand (In re Southmark Corp. ), 163 F.3d 925, 930 (5th Cir. 1999) ("[A] proceeding is core under § 157 if it invokes a substantive right provided by title 11 or if i......
-
Santerre v. Agip Petroleum Co., Inc.
...the determination of the issue in the prior action must have been a part of the judgment in that earlier action." Matter of Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925, 932 (5th Cir.1999) (citing RecoverEdge L.P. v. Pentecost, 44 F.3d 1284, 1290 (5th Cir.1995)); see Matter of Gober, 100 F.3d 1195, 1201 (......
-
Stern v. Marshall--Digging for Gold and Shaking the Foundation of Bankruptcy Courts (or Not)
...Credit Union ( In re Turner), 2011 WL 2708907, at *1, *3 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. July 11, 2011). 119. Id. at *3 (quoting In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925, 930 (5th Cir. 1999)). 120. Id. 121. Id. at *4. 122. Id. 670 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 72 court concluded that it may exercise authority ov......