UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON DIVISION
IN RE:
TECHNOLOGIES
INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC. CHAPTER 11
DEBTOR CASE NO.
99-50867
IN RE:
ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. CHAPTER
11
DEBTOR CASE NO.
99-50868
IN RE:
MERIDIAN TRANSPORT CO. CHAPTER
11
DEBTOR CASE NO.
99-50869
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court pursuant to Llama
Capital Services, LLCs Motion and Application for Allowance and Payment of
Administrative Expense Claims [537] (Application) filed herein on June 27,
2000. By the Application, Llama Capital
Services, LLC (Llama) seeks payment of the sum of $311,036.28 as an
administrative expense pursuant to the terms of 11 U.S.C. §503(b). Various objections have been filed to the
Application and will be discussed herein.
For the reasons set out hereinafter, the court holds that Llama is
entitled to reimbursement in the amount of $304,150.27.
The debtors in these proceedings were involved in the
business of removal of gasoline storage tanks which constituted environmental
hazards and the rehabilitation of the property on which the tanks were
located. The debtors particular niche
in this business involved small land owners who were eligible for reimbursement
of the costs of removal and rehabilitation from funds held by the Commonwealth
of Kentucky, Office of Petroleum Storage Tank Environmental Assurance Fund (the
Fund). The land owners would assign
to debtors their right to receive reimbursement from the Fund upon completion
of the work. The court will refer to
these rights to receive reimbursement as accounts.
In order to finance its operations, since
reimbursement on these accounts was a tedious and lengthy process, the debtors
borrowed funds from Bank One and assigned to Bank One a security interest in
some accounts. At the time of this
Chapter 11 proceeding, Bank One was owed approximately $10.5 million. The debtors also sold, indirectly, certain
of these accounts to Llama, and at the time of the inception of this Chapter 11
proceeding, Llama held accounts amounting to, depending upon whose figure is
used, about $30 million. In the Chapter
11 proceeding, Llamas ownership and even its claim to any interest in these
accounts was challenged by the Unsecured Creditors Committee in an adversary
proceeding and that cloud was removed only upon confirmation of the Plan of
Reorganization and approval of a settlement, in Llamas favor, of the
contention of the Unsecured Creditors Committee that Llama did not own or even
have a security in these accounts.
On February 26, 1999, the debtors filed their
petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. On April 5, 1999, [79] that court
transferred venue of the cases to this court.
On May 14, 1999, [120] this court entered an Agreed
Order granting adequate protection and authorizing the use of cash
collateral. That order was subsequently
suspended by an Agreed Order of May 28, 1999, [151] further addressing the
same issues.
Paragraph 9 of the May 28, 1999, order reads as
follows:
9. Priority
Allowance for Bank-Llama.
Bank-Llama is hereby granted a priority administrative allowance under
Code §503(b)(1)(A) for all sums used by, loaned to or paid for the benefit of
the Debtors hereunder. The
post-petition advance or loan made by Bank on May 21, 1999 in the amount of
$70,000 shall be treated as a loan to the Debtors and shall be afforded the
aforesaid administrative priority nunc pro tunc.
Another Agreed Order granting adequate protection was
entered on July 9, 1999 [199].
Paragraph 14 of that order provides as follows:
14. Priority
Allowance for Bank-Llama. The
Banks security interest in its Collateral as described in its Proofs of Claim,
including the Accounts and the Retained Collateral, are hereby regranted
post-petition without any need of re-recording to the same extent, validity and
priority that the Bank enjoyed as of the Petition Date. Bank-Llama is hereby granted a priority
administrative allowance under Code §503(b)(1)(A) for all sums paid, loaned to
or used for the Debtors or their benefit under this Order. Llamas costs and
advances specified in this Order are also costs and expenses of collecting
claims as contemplated by its agreements with TSPE.
Subsequent to these Agreed Orders addressing adequate
protection and the use of cash collateral, various other orders addressing
those issues were entered, making various minor changes but all of them adopted
the language of paragraph 14 of the Order of July 9, 1999, as set out
above. Llama and Bank One proceeded to
allow the use of cash collateral from a lockbox arrangement from proceeds of
payments by the Fund on the accounts or by advancements of funds. Llama has presented documentation
identifying advancements in the sum of $604,823.21 through April 15, 2000. Pursuant to a settlement agreement and
further hearings in this case, Llama agreed to limit any request for
reimbursement of administrative expenses for sums advanced prior to April 15,
2000, to the sum of $300,000.
Bank One likewise advanced several hundreds of
thousands of dollars and, in a settlement to be subsequently discussed herein,
agreed to waive its administrative expense claims for sums advanced prior to
January 31, 2000.
After protracted negotiations, a settlement was
reached among the debtors, Bank One, the Committee, and the Fund settling and
adjusting the accounts which the debtors owned and in which Bank One had a
security interest for the payment of approximately $15 million dollars to those
entities. This settlement has been
referred to as Global I in this case.
After this settlement was reached, but prior to its approval by the
court, Llama moved for, and was granted, authority to take possession of and
administer the collection of the accounts of which it claimed ownership. That motion was heard February 3, 2000,
[427] and, it appears from the record herein, that the operative date by which
all parties understood that this arrangement had become enforceable was
February 11, 2000. In conjunction with
this process, the debtors gave a notice to Perkins Law Group, a law firm
retained by the debtors pursuant to court order to pursue administrative and
other appeals of denials of the claims on the accounts, and to RSI Consulting,
Inc., (RSI) a firm retained by the debtors and approved by the court for the
purpose of administering the accounts and filing claims with the Commonwealth
of Kentucky. The debtors notice to
those entities was to the effect that, a settlement having been reached by the
debtors, the only actions which should be taken thereafter, pending approval of
the settlement, would be those necessary to preserve the validity and appeal
rights of the accounts in case the settlement was not approved. The settlement itself called for all of the
accounts owned by the debtor and in which Bank One had a security interest to
be satisfied by the payment under the settlement agreement, Global I.
Llama then negotiated a settlement with the Fund and
the Unsecured Creditors Committee by which it would receive approximately $22
million dollars for all of the accounts of which it claimed ownership. This settlement was commonly referred to as
Global II.
After Global II was signed, neither the debtors, Bank
One nor Llama had an interest in pursuing collection on the accounts, but all
parties were interested in preserving the viability of their rights to pursue
the collection of the accounts in case the settlements were not approved. While Llama had possession of the accounts
it owned, they were not physically separated from the accounts owned by the
debtors in which Bank One had a security interest. Because Bank One and Llama had effectively waived or capped their
claims for administrative expenses and the debtors apparently had no funds to
assure that the security and integrity of the accounts were preserved, the
issue arose as to who would pay for those expenses during the interim while
awaiting hearing on approval of the Plan of Reorganization, Global I and Global
II. On May 11, 2000, [496] Llama filed
its Motion to Determine Administrative Expense Priority Entitlement of Llama
and Bank One as to Expenses Paid on or After April 15, 2000. After hearing on the matter, an order was
entered on May 25, 2000, [510] reciting that while the court could not approve
expenses in advance, the court would look favorably upon applications for reimbursement
of administrative expense for preservation of the estate for sums expended
after April 15, 2000, for certain items outlined by the court at the hearing
and on the record. Part of Llamas
claim presently under consideration, the sum of $11,036.28, is for payments
which it claims for expenses from and after April 15, 2000.
On June 9, 2000, [514] the court confirmed the Plan of
Reorganization and gave final approval of Global I and Global II and those
orders are now final.
THE
OBJECTIONS
Bank One has objected to Llamas Application on three
essential bases: a) that the funds used or advanced were essentially adequate
protection funds, and since Llama received adequate protection of its property
with no demonstrated diminution in its value, it is not entitled to an
administrative claim for the use of its cash collateral; b) that to the extent
the funds were used to preserve assets owned by Llama, no benefit was conferred
upon the estate; and c) that Llama essentially retarded progress of the case and
should, effectively, be penalized by denial of its administrative claim in any
sum.
The Unsecured Creditors Committee has filed an
objection objecting only to two portions of Llamas post April 15, 2000,
request: a) the sum of $1,359.31 which the Committee contends was for services
prior to April 15, 2000, which benefitted only Llama; and b) the sum of
$5,527.50 to RSI which was also, the Committee contends, for services for the
sole benefit of Llama after February 11, 2000, and before April 15, 2000.
Various other creditors have joined in portions of the
objections without identifying separate amounts objected to or separate legal
theories and those objections will be considered together with the objections
of Bank One and the Committee.
THE BANK
ONE OBJECTIONS
Bank One basically contends that Llama received what
it bargained for when its collateral was protected pursuant to the terms of the
adequate protection and cash collateral orders. However, the specific language of the order entered July 9, 1999,
provided as follows:
Bank-Llama is hereby granted a priority
administrative allowance under Code §503(b)(a)(A) for all sums paid, loaned to
or used for the Debtors or their benefit under this Order.
In the absence of this language, Bank Ones argument
might be more persuasive. However, it
appears that both Bank One and Llama negotiated for and received an
administrative expense claim for all sums advanced by them and the use of money
in which they had a security interest or ownership interest and that they
should have the benefit of this bargain.
The fact that Bank One and Llama settled differently with respect to
reduction of their administrative claims does not change their entitlement with
respect to making a claim for those portions they did not waive.
Bank One contends that preserving Llamas assets,
i.e., the accounts in which Llama claimed ownership, did not benefit the
estate. The record reflects that the
Unsecured Creditors Committee filed a lengthy complaint challenging Llamas
position as owner of the accounts in question.
That adversary proceeding was pending from its inception until approval
of the Plan of Reorganization, Global I and Global II. Had Llama not advanced the funds, it would
have been a hollow victory indeed if the Committee had won its claim against
Llama but the accounts had no value since they were not preserved. Additionally, the funds of Llama, who
contributed somewhat more monetarily than Bank One to preservation of assets,
appear to have benefitted the estate since it cannot be said that Llamas
contributions were segregated solely to preserve and administer accounts which
it owned. There was no segregation of
these accounts until after the February, 2000, court order recited above. Additionally, as is true for all of the
objections of Bank One, Bank One joined in the terms of the order of July 9,
1999, and is bound by them.
Bank One additionally claims that Llama retarded the
progress of the case and should effectively be penalized therefor by denial of
its claim for administrative expenses.
While Llamas counsel initially proceeded unilaterally with negotiations
with the Fund in an attempt to reach a comprehensive settlement of issues
involving the Fund, and while it is true that this attempt did not succeed in
reaching one comprehensive agreement, there is no evidence before the court
that Llamas efforts impeded the progress of the case to its final
conclusion. Arguably, Llamas
negotiations may have, in fact, benefitted other parties by setting a course
for the settlement known as Global I.
The court simply cannot conclude that Llama impeded progress in the
case. It certainly did act under the
terms of the cash collateral orders, as did Bank One, to provide life support
to the debtors when no other funds were available. Clearly, this general objection also is not well taken as to
Llamas claim for administrative expenses.
THE
COMMITTEE OBJECTIONS
Various objections have been filed regarding the
balance of the sum to which Llama claims entitlement in the amount of
$11,036.28. Of that sum, it appears
that $1,980.80 was expended for services after April 15, 2000, and pursuant to
the earlier hearing of the court, the court concludes that this sum should be
reimbursed to Llama.
Another portion of that requested reimbursement is for
$3,528.78 for reimbursement for payments made to Perkins Law Group. As above, from and after February 11, 2000,
Llama was in control of the accounts of which it claimed ownership. At that point, responsibility for
administration and collection of those accounts, the property of Llama (subject
only to court approval of the various settlements) was up to Llama. For that reason, Llama should pay expenses
incurred in connection with the accounts which it owned from February 11, 2000,
to April 15, 2000. It appears that, of
the sums paid to Perkins, no objection is raised by the Committee to the sum of
$2,169.47 and that sum should be reimbursed to Llama. The remaining sum of $1,359.31 appears to relate to Llamas own
accounts after February 11, 2000, and is not reimbursable.
The remaining portion of the $11,036.28 sum for which
Llama requests reimbursement is the sum of $5,527.50 paid to RSI. That sum appears to be for services rendered
after February 11, 2000, and prior to April 15, 2000, and is not reimbursable.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the
Application for Allowance and Payment of Administrative Expense Claims filed
herein by Llama Capital Services, LLC be, and it hereby is, SUSTAINED in the
total sum of $304,150.27 and the Disbursing Agent is directed to forthwith pay
said sum to Llama Capital Services, LLC.
Dated this day of , 2000.
BY THE COURT
JUDGE
COPIES
TO:
W.
Thomas Bunch, Esq.
Michael
H. Reed, Esq.
Thomas
Miller, Esq.
Laura
Day Delcotto, Esq.
Tracey
Wise, Esq.
U.S.
Trustee
Taft
McKinstry, Esq.
Frank
Becker, Esq.