In Re Commercial Finance Corp. of Nevada

16 B.R. 98, 8 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 650, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2388
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedDecember 16, 1981
DocketBankruptcy 81-00507
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 16 B.R. 98 (In Re Commercial Finance Corp. of Nevada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Commercial Finance Corp. of Nevada, 16 B.R. 98, 8 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 650, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2388 (D.D.C. 1981).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Trustee’s Standing to File a Motion for Conversion to Chapter 7)

ROGER M. WHELAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

This case was commenced on September 11, 1981. On October 5, 1981, the United States Trustee filed a motion to convert the case to a Chapter 7. In support of the *99 motion, allegations were made that the debtor corporation lacked the working capital to pay any administrative expenses of the bankruptcy proceeding and that there was an absence of a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation. The debtor in response to this motion filed an opposition to the motion for conversion to Chapter 7. One of the defenses raised in this opposition was that the United States trustee has no authority to move the Bankruptcy Court for conversion. The Debtor contends that 28 U.S.C. § 586(a) does not confer upon the United States trustee the authority to actively intervene in the course of a Chapter 11 proceeding absent an order from this Court. In addition, a further argument was raised that the United States Trustee does not have standing to file such a motion as under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) — only a party in interest may request the Court to convert a case. The debtor contends that the United States Trustee is not a party in interest. For the reasons which will be more fully explained in this opinion, the Court finds that for limited purposes the United States Trustee does have the authority to file a motion to convert from a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7.

The legislative history is unclear as to whether the United States Trustee can move to convert a Chapter 11 reorganization to a Chapter 7. Chapter 15, Subchap-ter XI of Title 11 does not specifically give the United States Trustee any independent power to move for conversion of a Chapter 11 reorganization case. 1 The intent of Congress through this subchapter was to modify the reorganization section for the experimental United States Trustee program districts as the reorganization sections, as finalized by Congress, made no reference to the United States trustee. 2 Therefore, Chapter 15, Subchapter XI was added by Congress to modify the reorganization sections to conform to the United States Trustee system in the pilot districts. For instance, 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a) provides that:

“At any time after the commencement of the case but before confirmation of a plan, on request of a party in interest, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall order the appointment of a trustee. . .”.

11 U.S.C. § 151104(a) was enacted to provide that the United States Trustee in the pilot program districts could also move for appointment of a trustee. That section provides that:

“At any time after the commencement of the case but before confirmation of a plan, on request of a party in interest or the United States trustee, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall order the appointment of a trustee. .. ”. [emphasis added]

The problem has arisen in this case as to whether it was Congress’s intent to not allow the United States Trustees to move for conversion of a ease. This Court thinks not. While it is true that Congress did not enact a specific section in Chapter 15 to modify 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) to include the United States Trustee as a party who could move for conversion, the Court feels this was done more as an oversight as opposed to a clear intent to exclude the United States Trustee as a party entitled to this privilege. The Court finds this for the following reasons.

First, there is no legislative history in which Congress displays an intent to exclude the United States Trustee from being able to file a motion to convert.

Second, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 151104(a)(2) the United States Trustee may request the appointment of a trustee or examiner in a Chapter 11 reorganization. If the United States Trustee is given authority to, at any time in a proceeding prior to confirmation, move for appointment of a trustee, it seems inappropriate to think that Congress wanted to bind his hands and not allow him to move for conversion of a case when there is no money to pay any of the *100 administrative expenses of the bankruptcy. If the United States Trustee was not allowed to file a motion to dismiss the case prior to a trustee being appointed, this would mean that in order to get a case dismissed for inability to pay administrative expenses, the United States Trustee would first have to move for appointment of a trustee, who in turn would then request that the Court convert the case for inability to pay the administrative costs. The estate would then be burdened with the additional costs of the compensation to be paid to the trustee for the time expended while he was moving for conversion.

Third, under 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b)

“A party in interest including the debt- or, the trustee, a creditor’s committee, an equity security holder’s committee, a creditor, an equity security holder, or an indenture trustee, may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in a case under this chapter.” [emphasis added].

The party in interest statute has been interpreted in In re Citizen’s Loan & Thrift Co., 3 to not be limited to just the parties specifically provided for in that subsection. Further, according to the statutory rules of construction of the Bankruptcy Code, the word “including” is not a word of limitation. 4 The Court in In re Citizen’s Loan & Thrift Co. found that § 1109(b) is to be construed broadly in order to permit affected parties to appear and be heard. In dicta the Court stated that even if the state agency they were dealing with was not found to be a party in interest under the liberal interpretation of § 1109(b) that at the court’s discretion permissive intervention could be allowed under Rule 10-210(b) upon a showing of cause. 5 However, this court finds that because of the supervisory and administrative nature of the United States Trustee, the United States Trustee in all cases where there is an alleged inability on the part of the debtor to pay the administrative costs of a case can move for conversion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 B.R. 98, 8 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 650, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-commercial-finance-corp-of-nevada-dcd-1981.