Proposed Order Granting Motion to Compromise/Settle Adversary Proceeding — In re Panthera Enterprises, LLC, No. 2:19-bk-00787 (Doc. 255, Bankr. N.D. W. Va.)

What This Document Is

Docket entry 255 is a three-page proposed order, filed December 15, 2020 by Trustee Aaron C. Amore, asking the court to approve the compromise and settlement of certain claims between the estate and Panthera Training, LLC under the Trustee's motion at docket entry 245. It was submitted the same day the underlying motion became ripe for the court's consideration following the notice period.

Factual Summary

The proposed order recites that the Trustee sought to resolve claims asserted in the adversary proceeding against Panthera Training, LLC by way of mutual dismissal along with Panthera Training's counterclaims, under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 and 11 U.S.C. Sections 105, 363, 704, and 1107. It states the motion was duly noticed and was then ripe for the court's consideration, and it cites the Fourth Circuit's business-judgment standard for evaluating a trustee's decision to compromise a claim, together with the related probability-of-success and complexity-of-litigation factors drawn from bankruptcy case law on compromise approval. The document's later pages are affected by a character-encoding defect that substitutes garbled text for portions of the analysis; the recoverable text, read against the parallel entered order at docket entry 256, indicates the proposed order concludes the compromise is in the best interest of the estate and asks the court to approve it. The order is signed on behalf of the Trustee and other counsel of record, including counsel for the West Virginia Economic Development Authority and for creditor SMI LLC.

Key Facts

Docket entry: 255, filed and entered 2020-12-15, 3 pages.
Filed by: Trustee Aaron C. Amore, in connection with the motion to compromise at docket entry 245.
Legal standards invoked: Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9019; 11 U.S.C. Sections 105, 363, 704, 1107; Fourth Circuit business-judgment and probability-of-success factors for compromise approval.
Relief proposed: approval of the compromise and settlement between the estate and Panthera Training, LLC.
Companion document: the court's entered order at docket entry 256, signed by Judge Paul M. Black the same day.

Source Caveats

Pages 2 and 3 of the source PDF are affected by a character-encoding substitution defect that renders portions of the legal analysis as garbled text; the summary above relies on the recoverable case-law citations and statutory references and on cross-reference to the textually parallel entered order at docket entry 256, and exact wording should be verified against the source before quotation.
This is the Trustee's own proposed order; the operative approval is the court's signed order at docket entry 256, not this filing.

Date: 2014-12-13

Cite this document

“Proposed Order Granting Motion to Compromise/Settle Adversary Proceeding — In re Panthera Enterprises, LLC, No. 2:19-bk-00787 (Doc. 255, 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/, SHA-256 e6d82679f40a9e2f97ca38eca0969dbb097a7c030463268ce5fbdf83b4a09b8e.

Full text

No. 2:19-bk-00787 Doc 255 Filed 12/15/20 Entered 12/15/20 09:59:18 Pagelof3

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 255 Filed 12/15/20 Entered 12/15/20 09:59:18 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 255 Filed 12/15/20 Entered 12/15/20 09:59:18 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.75953.255.0.pdf
Size: 243,705 bytes
SHA-256: e6d82679f40a9e2f97ca38eca0969dbb097a7c030463268ce5fbdf83b4a09b8e
Our copy: gov.uscourts.wvnb.75953.255.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)