• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK)In re ) Chapter 11)
 
T H AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION, L.L.C. ) Bankr. Case No. 08-14692) (REG)Debtor, )__________________________ ________________ ))WATERS & KRAUS CLAIMANTS, )) Case No. 1:09-cv-6432Appellant, ) (WHP))vs. ))T H AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION, L.L.C., ))Appellee, ))THE FUTURE CLAIMANTS’ )REPRESENTATIVE ))Appellee. ))BRIEF OF APPELLEETHE FUTURE CLAIMANTS’ REPRESENTATIVE_____________________________________________________________________________ _BRUNE & RICHARD LLP
Susan E. BruneTheresa Trzaskoma80 Broad StreetNew York, New York 10004Telephone: (212) 668-1900Facsimile: (212) 668-0315Email:sbrune@bruneandrichard.com ttrzaskoma@bruneandrichard.com and
STUTZMAN, BROMBERG, ESSERMAN &PLIFKA, A Professional Corporation
 Sander L. Esserman (Admitted
Pro Hac Vice
)Andrea L. Ducayet (Admitted
Pro Hac Vice
)2323 Bryan Street, Suite 2200Dallas, Texas 75201Telephone: (214) 969-4900Facsimile: (214) 969-4999Email:esserman@sbep-law.com ducayet@sbep-law.com 
 
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE
 
OF
 
CONTENTS
..............................................................................................................ii
TABLE
 
OF
 
AUTHORITIES
.......................................................................................................iv
I. STATEMENT
 
OF
 
ISSUE
 
ON
 
APPEAL
..........................................................................1
II. STANDARD
 
OF
 
REVIEW
...............................................................................................1
III. STATEMENT
 
OF
 
THE
 
CASE
.........................................................................................2
Procedural History
.............................................................................................................2
Statement of the Facts
.......................................................................................................4
The Pre-Petition Negotiations and the Resulting Prepackaged Plan
...................4
The Pre-Petition Solicitation of the Plan
...............................................................6
THAN’s Bankruptcy Case
......................................................................................6
The Continuance Motion
........................................................................................7
IV. ARGUMENT
......................................................................................................................9
A. The Sole Issue Properly Before this Court in this Appeal IsWhether the Bankruptcy Court Abused Its Discretion in Denyingthe Waters & Kraus Claimants’ Request for a Continuance toPursue Possible Objections to Confirmation of the Plan.
..................................9
B. The Kraus Claimants Have Not Demonstrated that theBankruptcy Court Abused Its Discretion in Denying TheirContinuance Motion.
...........................................................................................12
i. The Kraus Claimants Have Not Demonstrated that theBankruptcy Court Abused Its Discretion in Denying TheirRequest for a Continuance Under Bankruptcy Rule 9006.
..................13
1. The danger of prejudice to the debtor.
......................................14
2. The length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings.
....................................................................14
3. The reason for the delay, including whether it was inthe reasonable control of the movant.
........................................16
4. Whether the movant acted in good faith.
...................................17
 
 
iii
ii. The Kraus Claimants Have Not Demonstrated that theBankruptcy Court Erred in Denying Their Request for aContinuance Under Section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code.
..................18
iii. The Kraus Claimants Have Not Demonstrated that theBankruptcy Court Erred in Ruling that the KrausClaimants Could Not, as a Matter of Law, ReasonablyHave Relied on the Alleged Promise to Forgo TimelyObjecting to the Plan.
..............................................................................19
C. Even if this Court Were to Consider the Kraus Claimants’ OtherIssues Not Properly Before this Court on Appeal, the BankruptcyCourt Did Not Err in Confirming the Debtor’s Plan.
......................................20
i. The Plan is Confirmable Under Section 524(g) of theBankruptcy Code.
....................................................................................21
ii. The Kraus Claimants Have Not Demonstrated that TheyAre Entitled to Separate Classification Under the Planfrom All Other Asbestos Claimants.
......................................................22
V. CONCLUSION
................................................................................................................25
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...