Adams v. Marwil (In Re: Bayou Group, LLC), No. 07-1508 (2d Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

07-1508-bk Adams v. Marwil (In Re: Bayou Group, LLC) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2008 (Argued: September 17, 2008 Decided: May 1, 2009) Docket No. 07-1508-bk -----------------------------------------------------x IN RE: BAYOU GROUP, LLC, Debtor. ----------------------------------------------------x DIANA G. ADAMS, United States Trustee, Appellant, -- v. -RECEIVER JEFF J. MARWIL, for the Bayou Group Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, and BAYOU GROUP, LLC, Appellees.* ----------------------------------------------------x B e f o r e : WALKER, KATZMANN, GIBSON,** Circuit Judges. 30 Appeal by the United States Trustee from a judgment entered 31 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 32 New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge), affirming a decision of the 33 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New 1 2 * 1 2 ** The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption as set forth above. The Honorable John R. Gibson, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. -1- 1 York (Adlai S. Hardin, Bankruptcy Judge) rejecting the United 2 States Trustee s petition to appoint a trustee to manage the 3 debtor. 4 the United States Trustee s appeal from the bankruptcy court s 5 decision, where the district court had already appointed new 6 management of the debtor and the United States Trustee showed no 7 cause for removal of this management. 8 We hold that the district court did not err in denying AFFIRMED. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 MICHAEL E. ROBINSON, (William Kanter, of counsel), Attorneys, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., (Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Ross E. Morrison, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, N.Y., (Roberta A. DeAngelis, Acting General Counsel, Walter W. Theus, Jr., Department of Justice Executive Office for United States Trustees, Lisa L. Lambert, Assistant United States Trustee, of counsel), for Appellant. GARY J. MENNITT, (H. Jeffrey Schwartz, Elise Scherr Frejka, Jonathan D. Perry, of counsel), Dechert LLP, New York, N.Y., for Appellee Bayou Group LLC et al. RICHARD A. KIRBY, (Scott P. -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Lindsay, Maria Goodman, of counsel), Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Circuit Judge: Appellant Diana G. Adams, United States Trustee (the U.S. Trustee ), appeals from a judgment of the District Court for the 10 Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge) that 11 affirmed a decision of the Bankruptcy Court (Adlai S. Hardin, 12 Bankruptcy Judge) rejecting the U.S. Trustee s application under 13 11 U.S.C. § 1104 to appoint a trustee to manage the Bayou 14 entities ( Bayou, or the Bayou entities ) after the Bayou 15 entities filed for Chapter 11 protection. 16 bankruptcy, the district court had appointed Jeff J. Marwil 17 ( Marwil ) as receiver to manage Bayou. 18 Trustee argues, as she did below, that Marwil s duties as 19 receiver ended upon Bayou s filing for bankruptcy protection, and 20 therefore the bankruptcy court should have appointed her as the 21 trustee. 22 Prior to the On appeal, the U.S. We agree with the district court that the bankruptcy court s 23 pre-petition order effectively appointed Marwil as both receiver 24 and manager of Bayou, and thus conclude that there was no 25 management vacancy for the U.S. Trustee to fill. 26 U.S. Trustee has provided no reason, based on Marwil s 27 performance or qualifications, to replace him, we affirm the -3- Because the 1 judgment of the district court that affirmed the bankruptcy 2 court s denial of the U.S. Trustee s petition. BACKGROUND 3 4 The Bayou entities are a group of hedge funds and related 5 entities that were operated as fraudulent schemes, and are now 6 debtors-in-possession in Chapter 11 proceedings under the 7 Bankruptcy Code. 8 Bayou s managers pled guilty to various federal criminal fraud 9 charges, and were ordered to forfeit Bayou s assets. Following Bayou s collapse in August 2005, 10 On March 27, 2006, the Unofficial On-Shore Creditors 11 Committee (the Committee ), Bayou creditors holding more than 12 $130 million in claims, sought to mitigate the massive losses 13 suffered by the creditors and others through the appointment of 14 a federal equity receiver to pursue the litigation claims. 15 Adams v. Marwil (In re Bayou Group, L.L.C.), 363 B.R. 674, 678 16 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). 17 Committee asked the district court to appoint Marwil as both 18 non-bankruptcy federal equity receiver and exclusive managing 19 member for the Bayou entities. 20 marks and emphasis omitted). 21 fully discussed the subject of [Bayou s] corporate governance, See The Id. at 680 (internal quotation Following a two-day hearing that -4- 1 id. at 679-80, the district court, without objection,1 entered an 2 order (the Order ) authoriz[ing], empower[ing], and 3 direct[ing] Marwil to perform a number of duties and 4 responsibilities, including the responsibility for Corporate 5 Governance. 6 and exclusive managing member and representative of each of the 7 Bayou Entities[,] [possessing] . . . without limitation, the 8 authority to petition for protection under the Bankruptcy Code, 9 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. Order ¶ 7(e). Marwil was directed to be the sole Id. The Order specified that the 10 appointment was warranted under Section 10(b) of the Securities 11 Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, state law 12 claims of fraud and breach of a fiduciary duty, Federal Rule of 13 Civil Procedure 66, and the facts and circumstances of this 14 case. 15 the district court s authority to appoint Marwil was [p]ursuant 16 to 28 U.S.C. §§ 754 and 959, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 66 17 and [the] [c]ourt s inherent authority. 18 Id. at Introduction, ¶ 3. The Order further stated that Id. ¶ 1. Following the April 28 order, Marwil undertook his 19 responsibilities as managing member of Bayou. 20 caused each Bayou entity to file a separate voluntary petition 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 On May 30, Marwil The United States received notice of the Committee s action, and witnessed the finalization of the Order. See Bayou, 363 B.R. at 678. Numerous government agencies attended the district court hearings, including the U.S. Attorney, the SEC, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. None objected to the terms of the Order, or to the appointment of Marwil. See id. at 680. -5- 1 for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. 363 B.R. at 2 680. 3 proceedings seeking disgorgement from redeeming investors that 4 have resulted in excess of $20 million in recovered assets. 5 Marwil s efforts have been endorsed by all of Bayou s creditors, 6 including the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the 7 Official Creditors Committee ), which was organized by the U.S. 8 Trustee shortly after Marwil s appointment. Thereafter Marwil brought more than 125 adversary 9 On June 20, approximately eight weeks after Marwil s 10 appointment, the U.S. Trustee moved in the bankruptcy court for 11 an order appointing a Chapter 11 trustee to replace Marwil and 12 oversee Bayou s bankruptcy proceedings. 13 orally denied the U.S. Trustee s motion, both as an impermissible 14 collateral attack on the Order, and because the district court 15 had appointed Marwil not only as receiver of the Bayou entities, 16 but also as new management of the[] debtors with the authority 17 and capacity to manage the bankruptcy proceedings as the debtor- 18 in-possession. 19 omitted). 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The bankruptcy court 363 B.R. at 682 (internal quotation marks The bankruptcy court said: Mr. Marwil is not simply a custodian. . . . [I]t is crystal clear that the purpose of Judge McMahon s order was to appoint somebody who was in fact and law the equivalent of a new board of directors, new CEO, new president, new CFO as a debtor-inpossession . . . . [I]t is perfectly clear to me that he's really not just a receiver or a custodian -6- 1 2 3 . . . . Id. (alterations and second and third omissions in original, and 4 internal quotation marks omitted). 5 On February 2, 2007, the district court, affirming the 6 bankruptcy court, held that the Order clearly contemplated 7 appointing Marwil as both a receiver and as Bayou s corporate 8 management, and that Marwil s corporate management appointment 9 was not merely derivative of his receivership appointment but 10 instead was made pursuant to federal receivership statutes as 11 well as federal securities law[s] and [the district] court s 12 inherent authority. 13 Marwil, as the sole and exclusive managing member and 14 representative of [Bayou], had the sole and exclusive power and 15 authority to manage and direct the business and financial affairs 16 of [Bayou], including without limitation, the authority to 17 petition for protection under the Bankruptcy Code . . . and in 18 connection therewith be and be deemed a debtor-in-possession for 19 [Bayou]. 20 by filing for bankruptcy, Marwil transformed his status from 21 corporate governor to debtor-in-possession, and therefore, that 22 Marwil was under no obligation to turn over Bayou s property to 23 a bankruptcy trustee. 24 25 Id. at 683. Order ¶ 7(e). The district court found that The district court further held that, 363 B.R. at 687. The U.S. Trustee then appealed to this court. DISCUSSION -7- 1 On appeal, the U.S. Trustee argues that the district court 2 misinterpreted its own order by permitting Marwil to continue as 3 managing member of Bayou after he caused the Bayou entities to 4 file for Chapter 11 protection. 5 both the bankruptcy court and the district court were wrong to 6 conclude that Marwil was not a custodian merely because he had 7 been granted the corporate governance powers of a managing 8 member and representative of the Bayou Entities. 9 18. According to the U.S. Trustee, Appellant Br. The U.S. Trustee further contends that, because Marwil was 10 only appointed by the district court to be the custodian of the 11 Bayou entities, and because custodians are prohibited under the 12 Bankruptcy Code from managing a debtor s property after 13 commencement of a bankruptcy proceeding, see 11 U.S.C. § 543(a),2 14 there was a vacuum of lawful management at Bayou to oversee the 15 bankruptcy proceedings, Appellant Br. 9, and therefore, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 Section 543(a) provides that: A custodian with knowledge of the commencement of a case under [the Bankruptcy Code] concerning the debtor may not make any disbursement from, or take any action in the administration of, property of the debtor, proceeds, product, offspring, rents, or profits of such property, or property of the estate, in the possession, custody, or control of such custodian, except such action as is necessary to preserve such property. 11 U.S.C. § 543(a). -8- 1 appointment of a bankruptcy trustee is necessary in this case. 2 For the following reasons, we disagree. 3 I. 4 Standard of Review Where, as here, a district court acts in its capacity as an 5 appellate court in a bankruptcy case, the district court s 6 decisions are subject to plenary review by this court. 7 Mart Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Nickel (In re Dairy Mart 8 Convenience Stores, Inc.), 411 F.3d 367, 371 (2d Cir. 2005). 9 thus review independently the factual findings and legal Dairy 10 conclusions of the bankruptcy court, accepting its findings of 11 fact unless they are clearly erroneous and reviewing its 12 conclusions of law de novo. 13 We Vebeliunas), 332 F.3d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 2003). 14 Babitt v. Vebeliunas (In re As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether the 15 interpretation of the Order by the courts below constituted a 16 finding of fact or conclusion of law. 17 that, because the case hinges on a legal interpretation of the 18 Order, the bankruptcy and district court conclusions must be 19 reviewed de novo, see Appellant Br. 11 (citing Lebovits v. 20 Scheffel (In re Lehal Realty Assocs.), 101 F.3d 272, 276 (2d Cir. 21 1996)), while the Official Creditors Committee asserts that the 22 scope of Marwil s authority is a question of fact, reviewable 23 under the clearly erroneous standard, see Br. of Appellee 24 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in Opp n ( Official -9- The U.S. Trustee claims 1 Creditors Committee Br. ), at 14-15 (citing Fisher v. First 2 Stamford Bank & Trust Co., 751 F.2d 519, 522 (2d Cir. 1984)). 3 have no need to resolve this dispute, however, because we agree 4 with the determinations of the courts below. 5 6 7 8 II. 9 appointment of a trustee to oversee Chapter 11 proceedings. We Appointment Of A Trustee Is Not Warranted Under 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a). Upon request of the U.S. Trustee, the court shall order the 10 U.S.C. § 1104(a). 11 in certain circumstances. 12 Online Servs., Inc. (In re Smart World Techs., LLC), 423 F.3d 13 166, 174 n.10 (2d Cir. 2005). 14 be appointed pursuant to a § 1104 motion for cause, including 15 fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the 16 affairs of the debtor by current management, or if such 17 appointment is in the interests of creditors. 18 11 1104(a)(1)-(2). 19 However, the court may appoint a trustee only See Smart World Techs., LLC v. Juno Specifically, a trustee may only 11 U.S.C. § [T]he standard for § 1104 appointment is very high . . . . 20 In re Smart World, 423 F.3d at 176; see also 7 Collier on 21 Bankruptcy, ¶ 1104.02[2][a] (noting that appointment of a trustee 22 in a Chapter 11 case is an extraordinary remedy). 23 Trustee has the burden of showing by clear and convincing 24 evidence that the appointment of a trustee is warranted. 25 Adelphia Commc ns Corp., 336 B.R. 610, 656 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 26 2006). The U.S. In re In determining whether a § 1104 appointment is warranted -10- 1 or in the best interests of creditors, the bankruptcy court must 2 bear in mind that the appointment of a trustee may impose a 3 substantial financial burden on a hard pressed debtor seeking 4 relief under the Bankruptcy Code, by incurring the expenditure 5 of substantial administrative expenses caused by further delay 6 in the bankruptcy proceedings. 7 Anchorage Boat Sales, Inc. (In re Anchorage Boat Sales, Inc.), 4 8 B.R. 635, 644 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1980). 9 See Midlantic Nat l Bank v. In the instant case, the U.S. Trustee has not met the very 10 high standard for a § 1104 appointment. The U.S. Trustee has 11 not attempted to show that Marwil has engaged in fraud, 12 dishonesty, incompetence, or gross mismanagement of Bayou s 13 affairs. 14 Bayou s managing member, Marwil has brought more than 125 15 adversary proceedings and recovered more than $20 million for 16 Bayou s creditors. 17 concedes the absence of any reason to doubt Marwil s competence 18 to manage Bayou s bankruptcy proceedings. 19 ( It is also important to note that Marwil s service as a 20 custodian, standing alone, did not automatically disqualify him 21 from being appointed or elected as a Chapter 11 trustee. ); see 22 also Appellees Br. 15 n.6 (describing Marwil s extensive 23 credentials and expertise in bankruptcy proceedings). 24 1104 motions have been denied even where the U.S. Trustee has In fact, the record is quite to the contrary. As In her brief, the U.S. Trustee effectively -11- See Appellant Br. 25 Section 1 demonstrated some potentially questionable conduct by existing 2 management of a debtor, see In re North Star Contracting Corp., 3 128 B.R. 66, 69-70 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991); here, there is none.3 4 Nor has the U.S. Trustee shown, or even attempted to show, 5 that the removal of Marwil is in the interests of creditors. 6 No creditor supports the motion,4 and the Official Creditors 7 Committee, which first petitioned for Marwil s appointment, 8 opposes it. 9 Marwil s removal would hamper the bankruptcy proceedings, see While appellees have pointed out ways in which 10 Appellees Br. 18-19, the U.S. Trustee has not indicated how 11 replacing Marwil would facilitate them, see, e.g., In re North 12 Star, 128 B.R. at 70 (denying appointment of trustee where 13 creditors committee supported continued operations by current 14 management). 15 The U.S. Trustee s motion boils down to a claim that because 16 the district court s order only appointed Marwil as custodian for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 1 2 3 4 5 4 The U.S. Trustee makes no attempt to impute the pre-petition fraudulent activity of Bayou s former management to Marwil. Such an imputation would be improper, as [w]hen considering whether to appoint a trustee for cause, a court s focus is on the debtor s current management, not the misdeeds of past management. In re The 1031 Tax Group, LLC, 374 B.R. 78, 86 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007). Two original investors who withdrew all of their money out of Bayou before its collapse, and who were defendants in an adversary proceeding commenced by Marwil, were the only parties to file a statement in support of the U.S. Trustee s § 1104 motion. See Bayou, 363 B.R. at 681. -12- 1 the Bayou entities, once Marwil caused Bayou to file for 2 bankruptcy, Marwil s custodial relationship with Bayou ended as a 3 matter of law and there was no manager to run the entities under 4 Chapter 11. 5 appointed, Bayou lacks management to prosecute the bankruptcy 6 proceedings. 7 The U.S. Trustee argues that, unless a trustee is We are not persuaded. First, from a purely practical perspective, Bayou has been 8 effectively managed since Marwil was appointed by the district 9 court in April 2006. The U.S. Trustee has produced no evidence 10 that Marwil failed to fulfill this role either pre- or post- 11 petition. 12 Bayou. 13 Thus, there has been no de facto management vacuum at Next, we agree with the district and bankruptcy courts that 14 the Order appointed Marwil to be both Bayou s custodian and its 15 corporate manager. 16 as custodian, and one as sole and exclusive managing member of 17 Bayou. 18 of the Chapter 11 proceedings, his managing member hat 19 remained. 20 intended by both the Committee in requesting Marwil s 21 appointment, and the district court in granting it.5 1 2 3 4 5 The Order provided Marwil with two hats one While Marwil s custodian hat came off upon commencement This dual role was specifically contemplated and 5 See Bayou, Apr. 18, 2006 Hearing Tr. at 33:7-34:20; id. at 10:22-12:20 ( We anticipate that there is likely to be a bankruptcy necessary for a number of the Bayou entities . . . . There is still nobody to represent the Bayou entities in that process and we believe the simplest way to go forward is to have -13- 1 The U.S. Trustee next contends that, although the district 2 court had the authority to provide Marwil with management powers 3 to run the affairs of Bayou prior to bankruptcy, it lacked the 4 authority to appoint Marwil as bankruptcy receiver under federal 5 law, and therefore, Marwil could not assume the responsibilities 6 as bankruptcy receiver after filing a Chapter 11 petition. 7 Eberhard v. Marcu, 530 F.3d 122, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) 8 ( [R]eceivership should not be used as an alternative to 9 bankruptcy . . . . ). Cf. However, Marwil s authority to manage the 10 bankruptcy proceedings stems not from his position as federal 11 equity receiver but from the language in the Order specifically 12 appointing Marwil as Bayou s sole and exclusive managing 13 member, thereby vesting him with the authority to file and 14 manage Bayou s bankruptcy proceedings. 15 plainly had authority to place Marwil in a management position 16 from which he could file and manage a Chapter 11 petition. 17 SEC v. Manor Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 458 F.2d 1082, 1103 (2d Cir. 18 1972) ( [15 U.S.C. §§ 77v(a) and 78aa] confer general equity 19 powers upon the district courts [to fashion remedies for 20 securities laws violations]. ); id. ( Once the equity 21 jurisdiction of the district court has been properly invoked by a 22 showing of a securities law violation, the court possesses the 23 necessary power to fashion an appropriate remedy. ). 1 The district court [Marwil] . . . administer the bankruptcy. ). -14- See The award 1 of such ancillary relief was fully within the district court s 2 authority. 3 The U.S. Trustee also argues, for the first time in its 4 reply, that the district court lacked authority to appoint Marwil 5 because he is not authorized under Connecticut law to govern 6 Bayou. 7 similarly unavailing. 8 Marwil as corporate manager stemmed from its inherent authority 9 to fashion remedies for violations of federal securities laws. 10 Moreover, as the district court noted, it could have appointed 11 Marwil as managing member of Bayou under Connecticut law, had it 12 chosen to do so. 13 Prestonworld, Inc., No. CV-445844S, 2002 WL 652369, at *6 (Conn. 14 Super. Ct. Mar. 22, 2002) (appointing custodian of corporation 15 and ordering that the custodian shall exercise all the powers of 16 the board of directors and officers of [the subject corporation] 17 to the extent necessary to manage the affairs of the corporation 18 in the best interests of its stockholders )). 19 This argument was made too late, and in any event, it is The district court s authority to appoint See Bayou, 363 B.R. at 685-86 (citing Morrow v. Finally, we reject the U.S. Trustee s claim that allowing 20 Marwil to prosecute Bayou s Chapter 11 proceedings override[s] 21 the scheme contemplated by the Bankruptcy Code by supplanting the 22 authority of the U.S. Trustee in Chapter 11 cases. 23 Br. 21. 24 precluded [the Committee] from moving th[e] court to appoint Appellant As the district court noted, nothing in the Code . . . -15- 1 corporate governance for the Bayou entities, pre-petition. 363 2 B.R. at 690. 3 letter of the Bankruptcy Code, which contemplates appointment of 4 a trustee under circumstances not present in this case. 5 questions of malfeasance or incompetence on the part of Marwil 6 arise, the U.S. Trustee is free to move for appointment of a 7 trustee. 8 possession pursuant to the district court s order. Marwil s appointment was within both the spirit and Should Until that time, however, Marwil remains the debtor-in- 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, the district court s judgment 11 affirming the bankruptcy court s denial of the U.S. Trustee s 12 motion to appoint a trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1104 is 13 hereby AFFIRMED. -16-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.