Turnkey Offshore Project Servs. v. JAB Energy Sols.
| Decision Date | 10 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-672 |
| Parties | TURNKEY OFFSHORE PROJECT SERVICES, LLC v. JAB ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
SECTION “I” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Turnkey Offshore Project Services, LLC (“TOPS”) filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction seeking to enjoin Defendants and JABCO ABC, LLC and its Director, Albert Alerto, from selling or alienating assets of JAB Energy Solutions II, LLC or Allison Marine Holding, LLC ECF No. 21. Defendants filed a timely Opposition. ECF No. 24. Plaintiff filed a reply memorandum. ECF No. 29. The Honorable Lance M. Africk referred the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to the undersigned magistrate judge for Findings and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). ECF No. 23.
On July 23, 2021, this Court held a hearing on this matter. ECF No 30. The Court ordered additional briefing from the parties on several issues. The parties submitted timely supplemental memoranda. ECF Nos. 31, 32. Following the July 23, 2021 hearing, the parties executed a written consent of jurisdiction and this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for all proceedings and entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
After having considered the record, the submissions, the written and oral arguments of counsel, the applicable law, and, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d), based on the fact findings and for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth herein.
Invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1333, TOPS filed this suit against Defendants JAB Energy Solutions, LLC and Brent Boudreaux seeking $8, 297, 633.82 as the remaining amounts owed for performing certain salvage and removal services on the High Island A370 (“HI A370”) offshore platform on the Outer Continental Shelf. ECF No. 1, at 2-6; see also ECF No. 13, at 1-2. Plaintiff initially asserted claims for breach of contract, and in the alternative unjust enrichment and fraud/fraudulent inducement. ECF No. 1, at 6-7. Although not entitled “Verified Complaint, ” the complaint includes a Verification. ECF No. 1-9. Plaintiff later filed a First Amended and Supplemental Complaint adding as Defendants JAB Energy Solutions II, LLC (“JAB II”) and Allison Marine Holdings, LLC (“AMH”) and asserting claims of veil piercing or alter-ego and/or single business enterprise. ECF No. 19, at 1-2. In addition to Plaintiff's case, at least two other contractors have filed similar suits seeking payment for their work on HI A370.[1]
Defendant Boudreaux answered (ECF No. 8) and, although not named in the original Complaint, JAB II answered as “erroneously identified” as JAB. ECF No. 7. In their status report, Defendants mentioned that JAB II had made a General Assignment of all of JAB II's property to JABCO ABC, LLC (“JABCO ABC”), in trust, for the benefit of JAB II's creditors pursuant to Delaware state law. ECF No. 14, at 2. Defendants represent that JAB II and several affiliates, along with their parent AMH, entered into a cross-collateralized credit agreement with certain lenders in 2011. ECF No. 24, at 2-3. After several pre-2020 events of default and credit agreement amendments, on June 4, 2021, JAB II filed a Petition for Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (“ABC”) in Delaware Chancery Court, Case No. 2021-492. Id. at 3. Neither the parent AMH nor any other affiliate instituted similar proceedings.
At the July 23, 2021 hearing, Defense counsel argued that the ABC petition assigned all of JAB II's assets (but not the assets of AMH or any affiliate also a party to the cross-collateralized credit agreement[2]) to JABCO ABC, the appointed assignee to administer JAB II's assets in the ABC proceeding to satisfy the pre-existing secured debt of all the co-borrowers, which Defendants contend is perfectly legal. Defendants assert that each borrower (JAB II, its affiliates and AMH) granted to the lender a security interest in all of their assets to secure the secured loan. ECF No. 24, at 2-3. Counsel further indicated that there is no allocation agreement or other document dividing the debt amongst JAB II, its affiliates and its parent whereby each party's rightful share of the joint secured debt is identified. See also id. at 3-4. The deadline to file claims in the ABC proceeding is September 17, 2021, so Defendants do not yet know whether any funds will be available to satisfy any of JAB II's unsecured creditors. Defendants readily admit, however, that JAB II's assets are insufficient to satisfy even the secured debt. ECF No. 32, at 13 (). Plaintiff thus has no hope of recovering any funds through the ABC proceeding should it choose to participate in same. Defense counsel also confirmed that JAB II is the only entity whose assets are subject to the Delaware ABC proceeding, thus preserving the assets of JAB II's affiliates and parent AMH despite their status as co-debtors.
After learning of JAB II's assignment to JABCO ABC, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the Defendants, JABCO ABC and its director Albert Altero from selling or otherwise alienating any JAB II assets aside from normal busines operations. ECF No. 21-3, at 3, 7 (emphasis added). Citing the testimony of Boudreaux, Plaintiff posits that all of JAB II's assets are being used to satisfy not just JAB II's own portion of the cross-collateralized debt but also the portions rightfully allocable to its parent, AMH, and related entities whose assets are not being touched. ECF No. 21-3, at 3-5. As only JAB II's assets (and not the assets of the affiliates or AMH) are being exhausted to satisfy the joint secured debt, AMH and the affiliates will continue to operate after having shed their portions of the secured debt, resulting in a preference in favor of their unsecured creditors at the expense of JAB II's unsecured creditors. Plaintiff argues that allowing JAB II to use the funds payable for the HI A370 work from the Black Elk bankruptcy to pay its secured creditors rather than the subcontractors who performed the offshore work violates the Black Elk bankruptcy court's resolution of that proceeding, which allocated portions of the administered bankrupt's funds for the performance of the removal work in light of the environmental and safety concerns of the abandoned sites. ECF No. 31, at 1-6.
Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 65 by not submitting an affidavit or verified complaint and not providing notice to JABCO ABC. ECF No. 24, at 6 n.7.[3] Defendants also argue that Plaintiff fails to establish the four elements for injunctive relief (id. at 7-10) and that the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine precludes this Court from issuing an injunction with regard to any assets subject to the ABC proceeding pending in the Delaware Chancery Court, which it contends includes the accounts receivable for the HI A370 work is owned by JAB II. ECF No. 24, at 6 n.7; see also ECF No. 32, at 18. Further, Defendants argue that Plaintiff mischaracterizes the Black Elk bankruptcy proceeding and court orders, and that the HI A370 work was not part of JAB II's Motion for Allowance and Payment of Administrative Expenses Claims referenced by Plaintiff in their supplemental brief (see ECF No. 31). ECF No. 32, at 2-5. They contend that the HI A370 work was post-bankruptcy work governed only by the Funding Sheet (ECF No. 32-3), not the bankruptcy court's order. Id. at 5.
A review of the bankruptcy docket in In re: Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC, [4]however, reveals that the Honorable Marvin Isgur of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas did indeed address the HI A370 work during the Black Elk bankruptcy proceeding.[5] Judge Isgur authorized Montco Oilfield Contractors to perform the work pursuant to its previously approved Master Services Agreement.[6] On July 13, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered its Order Confirming Third Amended Plan of Liquidation of Black Elk Offshore Operations, LLC approving the assignment of plugging and abandonment work to the Trusts. Evidently Montco was unable to perform the High Island work, and on June 9, 2017, the Black Elk Trustee engaged JAB to perform additional work beyond those blocks previously contracted to JAB.[7] Thus, there is no question that the Bankruptcy Court addressed the HI A370 work at issue in the Black Elk proceeding, which included an allocation of funds to pay for those services.
The prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine provides that “when one court is exercising in rem jurisdiction over a res, a second court will not assume in rem jurisdiction over the same res.”[8] The purpose of this rule is “[t]o avoid unseemly and disastrous conflicts in the administration of our dual judicial system, and to protect the judicial processes of the court first assuming jurisdiction.”[9]While the rule is rooted in principles of comity, the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine is not discretionary; it is a mandatory limitation on a court's jurisdiction.[10]
The sina qua non of jurisdiction in an in rem or quasi in rem action is a lawful seizure and custody or control of the relevant property.[11] Because this doctrine establishes a principle of priority, timing is critical.[12] The doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction requires that both...
To continue reading
Request your trial