Order Granting Motion to Compromise/Settle Adversary Proceeding — In re Panthera Enterprises, LLC, No. 2:19-bk-00787 (Doc. 256, Bankr. N.D. W. Va.)

What This Document Is

Docket entry 256 is the court's four-page, two-document order, signed by Judge Paul M. Black on December 15, 2020, granting the Trustee's motion to compromise and settle the adversary proceeding between the estate and Panthera Training, LLC (docket entry 245). It is the entered counterpart to the Trustee's proposed order at docket entry 255.

Factual Summary

The order carries the docket's own signature block confirming it was signed by Judge Paul M. Black on December 15, 2020 and entered on the docket that day. Its recitals track the proposed order at docket entry 255: the Trustee sought to resolve claims asserted in the adversary proceeding against Panthera Training by way of mutual dismissal with Panthera Training's counterclaims, under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 and 11 U.S.C. Sections 105, 363, 704, and 1107, citing the Fourth Circuit's business-judgment standard and related probability-of-success factors governing approval of a trustee's compromise. As with the proposed order, portions of the body text are affected by a character-encoding substitution defect. The docket text for this entry independently confirms the order's operative effect: it is captioned "Order Granting Motion to Compromise/Settle Adversary Proceeding," referencing docket entry 245, entered December 15, 2020.

Key Facts

Docket entry: 256, filed and entered 2020-12-15, 4 pages across two documents.
Signed by: Judge Paul M. Black, United States Bankruptcy Judge.
Underlying motion granted: docket entry 245, Trustee's motion to compromise/settle the Panthera Training adversary proceeding.
Companion proposed order: docket entry 255, submitted by the Trustee the same day.
Legal standards invoked: Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9019; 11 U.S.C. Sections 105, 363, 704, 1107.
Docket caption for this entry: "Order Granting Motion to Compromise/Settle Adversary Proceeding."

Source Caveats

Portions of the source PDF's body text are affected by the same character-encoding substitution defect present in the proposed order at docket entry 255; the summary relies on the docket-report caption and recoverable case citations to confirm the order's operative effect, and exact wording should be verified against the source before quotation.
The order resolves the adversary proceeding by settlement; the terms of the settlement itself are set out in the underlying motion at docket entry 245, not restated in full here.

Date: 2014-12-13

Cite this document

“Order Granting Motion to Compromise/Settle Adversary Proceeding — In re Panthera Enterprises, LLC, No. 2:19-bk-00787 (Doc. 256, Bankr. N.D. W. Va.).” Original at ecf.wvnb.uscourts.gov, dated 2014-12-13. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2014-12-13-19804179703-f58166f1-1/, SHA-256 f58166f102c57b22de4611db2caf4c0e067f5f5f7599a0b682b1dc2fcc0d3b40.

Full text

i 7
NEGHEPS Dgkeia bey BFth. 2O7%9c 256 Filed 12/15/20 Entered 12/45) CK Page 1 of 3
THIS ORDER HAS BEEN ENTERED ON THE DOCKET. Paul M. Black

PLEASE SEE DOCKET FOR ENTRY DATE. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

IN RE:
PANTHERA ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Debtor.

Case No. 19-00787
Chapter 11

PANTHERA ENTERPRISES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

V. Adv. Pro. No. 2:19-51

PANTHERA TRAINING, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPROMISE/SETTLE
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING

On a day prior came Aaron C. Amore, Trustee for the Estate of Panthera
Enterprises, LLC, by and through counsel, Aaron C. Amore of Amore Law, PLLC
with a compromise and settlement of certain claims as between these parties
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105, 541, 704, and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002, and 9019. The
Trustee sought to resolve the claims asserted in this adversary proceeding by way of
mutual dismissal with the Defendant along with its counterclaims. The motion has

been duly noticed and is now ripe for the Court’s consideration.

A decision to compromise a claim is also reviewed under the business

judgment test. E.g., In re OptInRealBig.com, LLC, 345 B.R. 277, 292 (Bankr. D.

Page 1 of 3
No. 2:19-bk-00787 Doc 256 Filed 12/15/20 Entered 12/15/20 13:50:02 Page 2of3

Colo. 2006) (“Where an application under Rule 9019 is appropriate, the Court's job
is to determine whether a given settlement is fair and equitable to the estate. In
making its determination, the Court gives some deference to the business judgment
of the debtor-in-possession.”). A review of that business judgment generally turns on
the outcome of four factors: (1) the probability of success in litigation; (2) the likely
difficulties in collection; (3) the complexity of the litigation involved, and the
expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily attending it; and (4) the paramount
interest of the creditors. Fry’s Metals, Inc. v. Gibbons (In re RFE Industries, Inc.),
283 F.3d 159, 165 (8rd Cir. 2003). See also Protective Committee for Independent
Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424-25 (1968)
(same); Drexel v. Loomis, 35 F.2d 800, 806 (8th Cir. 1929) (same). A compromise of
claims under Rule 9019 serves the purpose of binding the bankruptcy estate and the
creditor to the terms of the bargain struck by the parties. OptInRealBig.com, 345

B.R. at 291.

The Trustee investigated the alleged claims set out forth in the adversary
proceeding. He has engaged an expert to conduct a financial review of the
Defendant’s books, records and accounts to determine if there was a breach of the
lease agreement related to the additional rents provision that would entitle the
Debtor to excess rent payments and/or determine a breach of the lease occurred.
The Trustee, and the Trustee’s expert, were unable to substantiate the claims which
alleged that the Defendant failed to pay over excess rents pursuant to the lease. A

summary report of this financial review was attached as Exhibit A to the Trustee’s

Page 2 of 3
No. 2:19-bk-00787 Doc 256 Filed 12/15/20 Entered 12/15/20 13:50:02 Page3of3

motion. The Trustee was also unable to substantiate any of the other claims
asserted in the adversary proceeding by the Debtor such that he might pursue
claim(s) for damages and/or to establish that the lease was breached by the
Defendant. The Court acknowledges the Trustee is accorded significant deference

in the exercise of his business judgment.

The Motion to Compromise has been properly served upon the creditors and
parties in interest with no objections being filed within the time period as noticed by

the Clerk of this Court.

Accordingly, It is;

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Trustee’s Motion to
Compromise/Settle the adversary proceeding against Panther Training, LLC is

hereby GRANTED. This matter is dismissed with prejudice.

Prepared by:

/s/ Aaron C. Amore
Aaron C. Amore, WVSB No. 6455
Counsel for Ch. 7 Trustee

Seen and Agreed:

/s/Julia A. Chincheck

Julia A. Chincheck (WV Bar No. 718)
Michael R. Proctor (WV Bar No. 9122)
Zachary J. Rosencrance (WV Bar No. 13040)
BOWLES RICE LLP

/s/Douglas E. Kahle
Douglas E. Kahle (VA Bar No. 15964), appearing pro hac vice
BASNIGHT, KINSER, LEFTWICH & NUCKOLLS, P.C.

Page 3 of 3

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.wvnb.75953.256.0.pdf
Size: 281,300 bytes
SHA-256: f58166f102c57b22de4611db2caf4c0e067f5f5f7599a0b682b1dc2fcc0d3b40
Our copy: gov.uscourts.wvnb.75953.256.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)