-
7/28/2019 TRUSTEES RESPONSE TO LIMITED OBJECTION BY THE VIRGIN OIL COMPANY 6-17-13
1/11
-
7/28/2019 TRUSTEES RESPONSE TO LIMITED OBJECTION BY THE VIRGIN OIL COMPANY 6-17-13
2/11
- 2 -
The Plan Trust argues in the Limited Objection3
that the Plan cannot be confirmed because the
Trustee reserves the right to request bankruptcy court approval of a joint sale of Virgin Offshore
U.S.A., Inc.s oil and gas assets. The Plan Trust believes that distributions to creditors (a
majority of which are creditors of both estates) will be made through development of the assets
rather than liquidation. As of the date of the confirmation hearing, the Plan Trust (1) has not
presented a development plan and (2) has expressed no interest in selling the co-owned assets.
The Trustee disagrees with the Plan Trust regarding the prospects of development and
believes the best (and only) opportunity for distributions to creditors is through liquidation of the
assets. Additionally, the greatest value that may be realized for the co-owned assets is through a
joint sale. What the Plan Trust suggests by its Limited Objection is that a Court directed joint
sale of the co-owned assets is only available prior to or contemporaneous with confirmation and
not pursuant to a confirmed plan. If that is the case, the Trustee is left with no other option but to
pull the Plan and amend to provide for either (1) a pre-confirmation liquidation of the assets by
virtue of a Section 363 sale or (2) an effective date that post dates any contemplated liquidation
of the assets. The Trustee submits that the Plan already provides for liquidation and reserves the
right to request the Court to direct a liquidation that is in the best interest of creditors.
As filed, the Trustees liquidating Plan cannot be consummated without a Court approved
liquidation and specifically reserves the right to compel a joint sale to effect liquidation, if
necessary. Section 363(h) of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism by which a trustee
may sale co-owned property subject to court approval and the Trustee has specifically reserved
the right for this Court to direct a sale in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code plan
requirements. See 11 U.S.C. 1123(a)(5)(D) and (b)(4). Because the Plan complies with the
requirements of the Bankruptcy Code and does not request that this Court exceed its authority,
3 (R. at 427.)
Case 11-13028 Doc 439 Filed 06/17/13 Entered 06/17/13 17:45:18 Main DocumentPage 2 of 11
-
7/28/2019 TRUSTEES RESPONSE TO LIMITED OBJECTION BY THE VIRGIN OIL COMPANY 6-17-13
3/11
- 3 -
the Plan is confirmable with the specific joint sale provision. Upon confirmation,
implementation of the Plan will be supervised by this Court and creditors will have the
opportunity to object to any proposed sale of the assets. This Court retains authority to approve a
post confirmation sale of assets and direct the execution of any document that may be necessary
to consummate the plan, including issuance of an order directing a joint sale of the assets co-
owned with the Plan Trust. For this reason, the Trustee requests that the Limited Objection be
denied and that the Plan be confirmed as filed.
A. The bankruptcy court retains post confirmation jurisdiction to determine matterspertaining to the implementation and execution of a confirmed plan.
Although the statutory basis for the Courts jurisdiction does not change after
confirmation of a plan of reorganization, i.e., jurisdiction still is governed by 28 U.S.C. 1334,
the Trustee acknowledges that the scope of the jurisdiction narrows after confirmation of a plan.
SeeIn re U.S. Brass Corp., 301 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2002). In Craigs Stores, the Fifth Circuit
held that bankruptcy jurisdiction ceases to exist post confirmation, other than for matters
pertaining to the implementation or execution of the plan. See In re Craig's Stores of Tex.,
Inc., 266 F.3d 388, 391 (5th Cir. 2001).
Since Craigs Stores, the Fifth Circuit and courts within the Fifth Circuit have applied the
implementation or execution test on multiple occasions. See, e.g.,In re Network Cancer Care,
L.P., 197 Fed. Appx 284, 286, 2006 WL 2034425 (5th Cir. July 19, 2006) (affirming lower
courts and finding that bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over post confirmation professional fee
matter where professionals services pertained to the implementation and execution of the
debtors reorganization plan); In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 2005 WL
1745471, *1 (S.D. Tex. July 25, 2005) (post-confirmation related to bankruptcy jurisdiction is
restricted to matters pertaining to implementation or execution of the reorganization plan).
Case 11-13028 Doc 439 Filed 06/17/13 Entered 06/17/13 17:45:18 Main DocumentPage 3 of 11
-
7/28/2019 TRUSTEES RESPONSE TO LIMITED OBJECTION BY THE VIRGIN OIL COMPANY 6-17-13
4/11
- 4 -
Following Craigs Stores and U.S. Brass Corp., bankruptcy courts within the Fifth
Circuit have developed multifactor tests to determine whether post confirmation related to
jurisdiction exists. For example, in In re EBCO Land Dev., Ltd., 2008 WL 1766693 (Bankr.
S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2008), the bankruptcy court distilled a six-factor test:
1. whether state law or bankruptcy law governs the suit;2. whether the claim arose pre-petition or post-petition;3. whether there are provisions in the confirmed plan expressly retaining
jurisdiction;
4. whether substantial consummation occurred;5. whether the reorganized debtor is a party; and6. whether there are any indices of forum shopping.
Id. at *3-6. Turning to this matter, application of the foregoing factors necessarily requires a
finding that this Court may exercise post confirmation jurisdiction to approve and direct a joint
sale of assets, if necessary. The Plans specific reservation of the right to pursue such a sale
establishes the requisite nexus for purposes of post confirmation jurisdiction and involves the
application of post confirmation bankruptcy law.
More importantly, the Plan will not be substantially consummated until the Debtors
assets are liquidated. Section 1101 of the Bankruptcy Code defines substantial consummation
as, inter alia, the transfer of all or substantially all of the property proposed by the plan to be
transferred. 11 U.S.C. 1101(2)(A). Here, the Plan specifically requires the liquidation of the
Debtors assets to fund distributions to creditors. The Plan goes on to specify that any sale of the
assets, including a joint sale, is subject to bankruptcy court approval. The Plan Trusts argument
that a joint sale is not permissible is based solely upon its disinterest in liquidating the assets and
continued belief in a development plan. The Trustee cannot understand why the Plan Trust
Case 11-13028 Doc 439 Filed 06/17/13 Entered 06/17/13 17:45:18 Main DocumentPage 4 of 11
-
7/28/2019 TRUSTEES RESPONSE TO LIMITED OBJECTION BY THE VIRGIN OIL COMPANY 6-17-13
5/11
- 5 -
would unequivocally and prematurely denounce a joint sale that has yet to be proposed or
negotiated. Regardless, the Trustee has been unable to locate any case law that denies the Debtor
the right to seek bankruptcy court approval of a sale that is specifically retained in the confirmed
plan.
In support of the Limited Objection, the Plan Trust cites In re Golf, LLC, 322 B.R. 874
(Bankr. D. Neb. 2004) for the proposition that Section 363 may only be used by a trustee and the
bankruptcy court during the pendency of a bankruptcy case and before confirmation.4
However, Golfis not controlling in this case. In Golf, the debtor was denied a request to invoke
Section 363(f) to sell certain property post confirmation, but the confirmed plan made no
specific mention of the property at issue.5
That is not the case here. The Trustees Plan proposes
to operate consistent with the Bankruptcy Code sale requirements, not contrary to those
requirements. The Plan Trust seeks to deny the Trustee this right simply because it disagrees
with the approach.
The Trustee has proposed a Plan that specifically reserves the right to seek this Courts
approval of a joint sale, if necessary; a right that would otherwise be available to the Trustee in
bankruptcy absent plan confirmation. It cannot be that confirmation of a plan forecloses a
trustees ability to apply provisions of the Bankruptcy Code necessary for the implementation
and execution of a confirmed plan. Under Craig Stores and its progeny, this Court retains
jurisdiction to implement and execute the confirmed plan, including ordering and directing the
liquidation of assets to effect substantial consummation. Accordingly, the Plan Trusts Limited
4 See Limited Objection, at p.4.5 Golf, 322 B.R. at 874-76 (reasoning that the sale of specific assets was not encompassed by language in the
confirmed plan that provided jurisdiction for the Bankruptcy Court[t]o hear and determine any and all pending or
future applications for approval of the sale of the Assets or any portion thereof).
Case 11-13028 Doc 439 Filed 06/17/13 Entered 06/17/13 17:45:18 Main DocumentPage 5 of 11
-
7/28/2019 TRUSTEES RESPONSE TO LIMITED OBJECTION BY THE VIRGIN OIL COMPANY 6-17-13
6/11
- 6 -
Objection must be denied and the Trustee should be permitted to reserve the right to seek Court
approval of a joint sale.
B. This Court may issue orders directing the joint sale of assets pursuant to aconfirmed plan.
A bankruptcy court retains post confirmation power to direct the debtor and any other
necessary party to execute or deliver or to join in the execution or delivery of any instrument
required to effect a transfer of property dealt with by a confirmed plan, and to perform any other
act, including the satisfaction of any lien, that is necessary for the consummation of the plan.6
Furthermore, Bankruptcy Rule 3020 expressly permits bankruptcy courts to issue any order
necessary to administer the estate notwithstanding the entry of the order of confirmation.
Here, the Trustee has expressly provided in the Plan that a sale of the assets shall be
subject to this Courts review and approval, including consideration of directing a joint sale. It is
clear from the proposed Plan that liquidation of the Existing Oil & Gas Assets is necessary to
effect substantial consummation of the Plan and therefore necessary to the administration of the
estate.7
What the Plan Trust suggests is that the Trustee should not be entitled to reserve the
right to direct a joint sale simply because such right is unavailable post confirmation. Yet, if the
Plan provides for the right to seek an order directing a joint sale consistent with the provisions of
Section 363(h), this Court retains authority to issue orders to effect such provision.
Additionally, the Plan Trusts argument that the Trustee will no longer have standing to
invoke Section 363 powers fails when a plan specifically provides for such retention by a trustee
or debtor. Section 1123(b)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code specifically provides that a fiduciary may
611 U.S.C. 1142.
7 11 U.S.C. 1101(2)(A) (defining one of the components of substantial consummation as transfer of all
or substantially all of the property proposed by the plan to be transferred).
Case 11-13028 Doc 439 Filed 06/17/13 Entered 06/17/13 17:45:18 Main DocumentPage 6 of 11
-
7/28/2019 TRUSTEES RESPONSE TO LIMITED OBJECTION BY THE VIRGIN OIL COMPANY 6-17-13
7/11
- 7 -
control and administer an estate after the confirmation of a plan.8
It seems axiomatic that such
retention would include the trustees power to invoke a sale pursuant to Section 363 in order to
consummate the confirmed plan.9
Lastly, the Fifth Circuit has held that a trustee may retain post confirmation power if
specifically provided for in a confirmed plan.10
There is no dispute that when powers are not
specifically reservedas in Western Integrated Networkssuch powers cease to exist post-
confirmation.11
Here, the Plan specifically reserves the power of the Trustee to obtain court
approval of a proposed sale, a Section 363(h) sale if necessary. Accordingly, the Limited
Objection should be overruled and the Plan confirmed.
C. Reservation of the right to pursue a joint sale is in the best interest of creditors anda necessary component of the Trustees proposed Plan.
The Trustee envisions no other prospects for making distribution to creditors than a
proposed liquidation of the assets. The Trustee specifically discussed this issue in the Amended
Disclosure Statements liquidation analysis:
The Trustee can only anticipate one alternative to a liquidating plan continued
operation and development of the Existing Oil and Gas Assets. The Trustee
believes this option is not in the best interests of the creditors because of the
unavailability of financing to pursue some or all of the proposed welldevelopment plans. The Virgin Oil Plan Trust has indicated its desire to propose
and compel pursuit of well development plan that will require Offshore and/or
Reorganized Offshore to elect to participate and pay its share of developmentcosts. Offshore is not in a position to raise capital and has no immediate sources
8See 11 U.S.C. 1123(b)(3).9 Once the Plan is confirmed, the confirmed plan controls and preference for enforcing the terms of a plan
can even preempt state law and federal statute. See In re Dial Bus. Forms, Inc., 283 B.R. 537 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2002)aff'd, 341 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding that terms of the confirmed plan controlled over any other contrary
provision of the Missouri Uniform Commercial Code); andIn reIn re Contempri Homes, Inc., 247 B.R. 135, 136(Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2000) (holding that terms of the confirmed plan controlled over a contrary federal statute
providing for disbursement of trustees fees).10 See In re Texas Wyoming Drilling, Inc., 647 F.3d 547, 551-52 (5th Cir. 2011) (finding that specific
language in the bankruptcy plan was sufficient to allow a trustee to bring a post-confirmation avoidance action).11
In re W. Integrated Networks, LLC, 329 B.R. 334 (Bankr. D. Col. 2005) (holding first that the confirmedplans reservation of powers lacked the necessary specificity to confer standing then analyzing what a trustees
powers are post-confirmation in absence of a specific reservation).
Case 11-13028 Doc 439 Filed 06/17/13 Entered 06/17/13 17:45:18 Main DocumentPage 7 of 11
-
7/28/2019 TRUSTEES RESPONSE TO LIMITED OBJECTION BY THE VIRGIN OIL COMPANY 6-17-13
8/11
- 8 -
of capital to satisfy these expected funding requirements. As a result,
Reorganized Offshore will likely go non-consent on these developmentproposals, and be subject to significant payout penalties prior to receiving any
revenues from production. For these reasons, the Trustee does not deem
participation in a lengthy and costly development program as the most effective
means to make Distributions. The Trustee believes that confirmation of the Planpreserves the current value, if any, of Offshores remaining assets for satisfaction
of the P&A Work and subsequent Distributions to creditors.12
The Amended Disclosure Statement was approved by this Court. All creditors are on notice of
the proposed liquidation, and none have objected. Only the Plan Trust objects, though. Neither
this Court nor the Trustee has experienced even a whiff of a possible development plan even
though one was promised to the Court by the Plan Trust months ago.
The Trustees proposed liquidation of the assets through a sale, joint sale or auction also
satisfies the plan requirements of section 1123 of the Bankruptcy Code. A joint sale of the co-
owned assets makes sense because the Plan Trust and Debtor maintain a special relationship and
any potential purchaser (1) obtains a 100% ownership interest in Empire and a 60% interest in
Ship Shoal; (2) obtains operating rights to EC 2, EC 219, WC 78 and potentially VM 179; (3) is
unhampered by any future involvement with the bankruptcy court; (4) would assume all future
P&A liability; and (5) arguably will offer a higher price for the assets than in an individual sale
or auction. Such an option should not be foreclosed to the Trustee simply because the Courts
approval of a joint sale might occur post confirmation.
The Plan Trust and Trustee fundamentally disagree regarding the prospect of future
development of the co-owned assets (counsel for the Trustee believes this is true though the
Trustee knows of no proposed development plan). This Debtor does not have the resources to
participate in development and has been severely hampered by the current state of affairs and the
12See First Amended Disclosure Statement in Support of Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization Dated March 28,
2013 Submitted by Gerald H. Schiff, Chapter 11 Trustee for the Estate of Virgin Offshore, USA, Inc. at Article
(XV). (Doc. 401).
Case 11-13028 Doc 439 Filed 06/17/13 Entered 06/17/13 17:45:18 Main DocumentPage 8 of 11
-
7/28/2019 TRUSTEES RESPONSE TO LIMITED OBJECTION BY THE VIRGIN OIL COMPANY 6-17-13
9/11
- 9 -
P&A liability that has been underfunded in the past. Regardless of the Plan Trusts
dissatisfaction with the Trustees reservation of a right to seek a joint sale, the Trustee must be
able to pursue a joint sale.
If the Court disagrees that the Plan cannot reserve a trustees right to effect a joint sale of
co-owned property, the Trustee must amend to provide for (1) a pre-confirmation liquidation, (2)
an effective date that post dates an approved section 363 sale, and/or (3) a reservation that the
assets do not vest in the reorganized debtor. Such an approach was not available to the Trustee
when the Plan was filed.
For the reasons discussed herein, the Trustee submits that the Plan can be confirmed with
the Court retaining the authority to issue orders necessary to consummation, including directing a
joint sale of the co-owned oil and gas assets. Upon confirmation, the Plan controls and the
specific retention of authority is not contrary to the post confirmation provisions of the
Bankruptcy Code. The Plan Trust will have every opportunity to review proposals and to refuse
to participate. If the Plan Trust refuses to participate in a joint sale, the Trustee must be given
the opportunity (an opportunity that clearly exists pre-confirmation) to request that this Court
direct a joint sale that is in the best interest of creditors. Accordingly, the Limited Objection
should be denied.
GORDON, ARATA, MCCOLLAM,
DUPLANTIS & EAGAN, LLC
By:/s/Louis M. Phillips
Louis M. Phillips (La. Bar No. 10505)
One American Place301 Main Street, Suite 1600
Baton Rouge, LA 70825
Phone: (225) 381-9643
Facsimile: (225) 336-9763Email: [email protected]
Case 11-13028 Doc 439 Filed 06/17/13 Entered 06/17/13 17:45:18 Main DocumentPage 9 of 11
-
7/28/2019 TRUSTEES RESPONSE TO LIMITED OBJECTION BY THE VIRGIN OIL COMPANY 6-17-13
10/11
- 10 -
- AND -
Patrick Rick M. Shelby (La Bar. No. 31963)
James D. Rhorer (La. Bar No. 34052)
201 St. Charles Avenue, 40th
Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170-4000Telephone: (504) 582-1111
Email: [email protected]
- AND -
Armistead M. Long (La. Bar No. 33949)400 East Kaliste Saloom Road, Suite 4200
Lafayette, LA 70508
Phone: (337) 237-0132
Facsimile: (337) 237-3451
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Gerald H. Schiff,
Chapter 11 Trustee
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been served upon the followingparties by electronic notice via the Courts CM/ECF system on this 17th day of June, 2013:
Stewart F. Peck, [email protected] Christopher T. Caplinger, [email protected] Benjamin W. Kadden,[email protected] Joseph P. Briggett,[email protected] H. Kent Aguillard, [email protected] Brent B. Barriere,[email protected] Raymond A. Beyt, [email protected] Frederick L. Bunol, [email protected], [email protected] Jeffrey Burmaster,[email protected] Jeffery D. Carruth,[email protected] Leo D. Congeni, [email protected] Michael A. Crawford, [email protected] Albert J. Derbes, [email protected],[email protected] Carl Dore, [email protected], [email protected] Douglas S. Draper, [email protected], [email protected] Steven G. Durio, [email protected],[email protected] Stanwood R. Duval, [email protected] J. David Forsyth,[email protected] Tanya N. Garrison, [email protected] Robert C. Gravolet, [email protected], [email protected]
Case 11-13028 Doc 439 Filed 06/17/13 Entered 06/17/13 17:45:18 Main DocumentPage 10 of 11
-
7/28/2019 TRUSTEES RESPONSE TO LIMITED OBJECTION BY THE VIRGIN OIL COMPANY 6-17-13
11/11
- 11 -
Thomas G. Gruenert, [email protected] [email protected] George B. Jurgens, [email protected], [email protected] Omer F. Kuebel, [email protected] Mark Mintz, [email protected], [email protected] Patricia Williams Prewitt,[email protected] Jacque B. Pucheu,[email protected],[email protected] Ryan J. Richmond, [email protected] Kathleen Shahan, [email protected] Thomas J. Smith, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Office of the U.S. Trustee, [email protected] Dennis J. Vidrine, [email protected] Arthur A. Vingiello, [email protected] David F. Waguespack, [email protected] Guy E. Wall, [email protected], [email protected] Kristin S. Wallis, [email protected], [email protected] Timothy A. York, [email protected]
/s/Louis M. Phillips
Case 11-13028 Doc 439 Filed 06/17/13 Entered 06/17/13 17:45:18 Main DocumentPage 11 of 11