Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


September 23, 2005.

MATTHEW OREN, Appellant,
ZACHARY B. KASS, as Chapter 11 Trustee of Anita Terrace Owners, Inc. Appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: FREDERIC BLOCK, District Judge


Pro se appellant Matthew Oren ("Oren") contributed to an unsuccessful bid to acquire the assets of Chapter 11 debtor Anita Terrace Owners, Inc. (the "Debtor"). Oren appeals four separate orders of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, which (1) confirmed Trustee Zachary B. Kass's (the "Trustee") plan of reorganization; (2) granted the Trustee's attorneys' fees; and (3) denied two Orders to Show Cause requesting (a) vacatur of the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation order and (b) reconsideration of an order affirming the sale of the Debtor's assets to another bidder. By order dated October 22, 2004, the four appeals were consolidated. For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the appeals.


  The Debtor owns land and property which include three 14-story apartment buildings located in Rego Park, Queens (the "Property"). In 1991 ViSutton Associates ("ViSutton") purchased the Property, financed in part by a $15 million mortgage from RB Asset, Inc. ("RB Asset"), and sponsored its conversion to a cooperative form of ownership. Upon conversion of the Property, ViSutton obtained additional financing in the form of a loan from RB Asset, which was secured by ViSutton's interest in the apartment building's unsold apartment units; RB Asset and ViSutton subsequently agreed to a modification of the mortgage which consolidated a portion of the additional financing with the underlying mortgage into a modified mortgage of about $19 million (the "Mortgage Modification"). The Debtor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2001, after it became unable to pay its real estate taxes or make payments on the mortgage.

  A. Bankruptcy Court Proceedings

  The Bankruptcy Court appointed the Trustee in July 2001. The Trustee initially attempted to identify a third-party investor who would acquire the shares in the Debtor's unsold apartments, in return for providing funds sufficient to pay the modified mortgage held by RB Asset. In February 2003, RB Asset determined that this strategy was no longer in its economic interest and refused to go forward with the proposal; RB Asset subsequently filed a proposed plan of reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court.*fn1 The Trustee in turn commenced an adversary proceeding against RB Asset in connection with the Mortgage Modification, and submitted its own plan of reorganization (the "First Plan") that was contingent upon success in the litigation against RB Asset.

  After the Bankruptcy Court expressed concerns about the First Plan, the Trustee commenced settlement negotiations with RB Asset and other interested parties in an attempt to resolve various disputes. The parties eventually entered into a Settlement Agreement which resolved these disputes and formed the basis for an amended plan of reorganization (the "Second Plan"). As required by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this plan provided for the sale of Debtor's Property and guaranteed full payment of the mortgage debt to RB Asset by June 30, 2004.

  Over 200 of Debtor's shareholders filed objections to the Settlement Agreement; ROA Hutton LLC ("ROA"), a prospective bidder, also objected to the Trustee's proposed bidding procedures for the sale of the Property (the "Bid Procedures"), which required that all bidders (1) include a $5 million deposit with their bid; (2) submit the bid four days prior to auction; (3) provide proof of financial ability to consummate the sale, and (4) ensure payment to RB Asset by June 30, 2004. The Bid Procedures also granted the Trustee discretion to reject non-complying bids. Following a hearing, the Bankruptcy Court upheld both the Settlement Agreement and the Bid Procedures (the "Bid Procedures Order"), and neither ROA nor Oren appealed these orders.

  The Trustee subsequently entered into a contract to sell the Debtor's Property to Anita Rescue LLC, subject to the Trustee's acceptance of a higher and better bid. Oren was unable to raise the necessary funds to submit an individual bid, and instead contributed $200,000 towards a bid submitted by ROA. Because ROA's bid (1) was received four days after the deadline; (2) failed to include the required $5 million deposit; (3) did not provide proof of the financial resources necessary to effectuate the purchase, and (4) would not result in payment of the mortgage by the June 30 deadline, the Trustee rejected ROA's bid and did not allow it to participate at auction. In a hearing held on May 25, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court overruled ROA's objection that it should have been allowed to participate in the auction, and found that the winning bidder, Pinnacle Acquisitions LLC ("Pinnacle"), was a good faith purchaser under Bankruptcy Code § 363(m). The Bankruptcy Court subsequently entered an order which approved Pinnacle as the winning bidder (the "Successful Bidder Order").*fn2 A disclosure statement regarding the details of the Second Plan, which incorporated Pinnacle's bid to refinance rather than liquidate the property, was approved by the Bankruptcy Court and submitted for review to all parties. The Second Plan was unanimously accepted by all parties who voted upon it, including all shareholders of the Debtor who voted.

  Neither ROA nor Oren appealed the Successful Bidder Order; instead, on June 16, 2004, two days prior to the Confirmation Hearing on the Second Plan (the "Confirmation Hearing"), Oren filed his first Bankruptcy Court Order to Show Cause pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) ("First OTSC") requesting that the Bankruptcy Court stay confirmation of the Second Plan and reconsider the Successful Bidder Order, in light of what Oren alleges was newly discovered evidence about Pinnacle's bid, which required a 29% increase in shareholder maintenance fees. Alternatively, Oren requested that the Bankruptcy Court decline to confirm the plan because it was not in the best interests of the Debtor and did not meet certain substantive requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1129, which sets forth the prerequisites for confirmation of a reorganization plan under Chapter 11. The Confirmation Hearing was held on June 18, 2004; during the hearing the Bankruptcy Court also addressed Oren's First OTSC. Oren, who was represented by counsel at the Confirmation Hearing, explained that he was a "presumptive bidder" who sought an opportunity to have his bid considered by the Trustee. Tr. of Confirmation Hr'g, at 62.*fn3 The Bankruptcy Court noted that even assuming Oren had standing to present his objections to the Second Plan, the relief Oren requested would require the Court to set aside the Bid Procedures Order, the Successful Bidder Order, and the Settlement Agreement, to which Oren had not objected or filed timely appeals. The Bankruptcy Court then determined that the "new evidence" that formed the basis for Oren's Rule 60(b)(2) motion had become part of the public record on May 25, 2004, and was available to Oren at least by May 28, 2004, when the Bankruptcy Court signed the order approving Pinnacle's bid. Because Oren could have discovered this information through the exercise of due diligence in time for him to file a motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, the Bankruptcy Court concluded that Oren could not meet the requirements for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). An order confirming the Second Plan was entered on July 18, 2004 (the "Confirmation Order"); on June 22, 2004 the Bankruptcy Court entered a second order approving the fee applications of the Trustee's professionals, including his attorneys' fees (the "Fee Order").

  On June 25, 2004, following confirmation of the reorganization plan, Oren filed a second Order to Show Cause ("Second OTSC") in the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), (2), (3), and (6), seeking (1) a declaration that he had standing to bring the First OTSC as a bidder who had contributed to ROA's joint bid; (2) vacatur of the Confirmation Order, and (3) reconsideration of the Successful Bidder Order. The Bankruptcy Court did not make any finding regarding Oren's standing, but allowed him to be heard on his Second OTSC on May 28, 2004. At this hearing, Oren, now proceeding pro se, argued that his proposal was better for the shareholders' interests than the bid incorporated into the Second Plan and that he should be allowed to submit a bid for the Property; Oren also aruged that the Second Plan violated various substantive provisions of the Bankruptcy Code governing reorganization under Chaper 11.

  The Bankruptcy Court again informed Oren that in order to grant the relief sought, it would have to vacate not only the Confirmation Order, but the Settlement Agreement, Bid Procedures Order and Successful Bidder Order, none of which Oren had timely appealed from. The Bankruptcy Court stated that Rule 60 could not be used as a substitute for an appeal of these orders, and found that there was no basis for granting the relief sought under the rule. The Court also expressly found that even had ROA been allowed to submit a bid, it could not have been found to be higher or better because ROA admitted that its bid would not result in payment to RB Asset by June 30, as required by the Settlement Agreement.*fn4

  The Bankruptcy Court also rejected Oren's arguments that the Confirmation Order should be vacated for failure to comply with various requirements of Chapter 11 reorganization, explaining that it had previously made the findings required for plan confirmation, that these findings had not been appealed from, and that Oren had no basis for raising any of these issues in a Rule 60(b) motion. The Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.