In Re S & B Surgery Center, Inc.

421 B.R. 546, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 2259, 51 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 284, 2009 WL 2567017
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 17, 2009
DocketLA09-19825SB
StatusPublished

This text of 421 B.R. 546 (In Re S & B Surgery Center, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re S & B Surgery Center, Inc., 421 B.R. 546, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 2259, 51 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 284, 2009 WL 2567017 (Cal. 2009).

Opinion

OPINION REQUIRING CREDITORS’ COMMITTEE TO ESTABLISH WEBSITE FOR CREDITOR INFORMATION

SAMUEL L. BUFFORD, Bankruptcy Judge.

I. Introduction

This case raises the issue of what a chapter 11 committee of unsecured creditors must do to meet its statutory obligation under § 1102(b)(3) 1 to provide access to information for unsecured creditors. The court holds that, under the facts of this case, the committee must establish and, maintain an internet website to provide non-confidential information for unsecured creditors regarding the chapter 11 case. 2

II. Relevant Facts

S & B Surgery Center, Inc. (“S & B”), a chapter 11 debtor in possession, operates an out-patient surgery center in Century City (a district in the western part of Los Angeles). S & B has approximately 70 unsecured priority prepetition claimants (mostly wage claimants), and some 150 general unsecured creditors.

The total of unsecured prepetition claims exceeds $36 million. S & B anticipates confirming a reorganization plan that will permit it to continue in business. 3

To fulfill its § 1102(b)(3)(A) duties to unsecured creditors, the committee has proposed that it establish a call-in telephone number through which creditors *548 may request information and provide comments regarding the case, and that the committee’s counsel be prepared to respond as appropriate to such calls.

The committee requests that it be excused from providing a website for making information available, because it projects that the cost of establishing and maintaining such a website would range from $500 to $3,000 per month. The committee argues that such a cost is excessive and unwarranted in this case (which it describes as a “small case”).

III. Analysis

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPC-PA”) added subsection (3) to § 1102(b), which states in relevant part:

A committee appointed under subsection (a) shall—
(A) provide access to information for creditors who—
(i) hold claims of the kind represented by that committee; and
(ii) are not appointed to the committee;
(B) solicit and receive comments from the creditors described in subparagraph (A); and
(C) be subject to a court order that compels any additional report or disclosure to be made to the creditors described in subparagraph (A).

This motion relates primarily to the duty of providing information imposed by § 1102(b)(3)(A).

The language of BAPCPA does not define the “access” or “information” that § 1102(b)(3) requires. Both the legislative history of § 1102(b)(3) and the caselaw thereunder give sparse guidance on how to apply the statutory provisions.

A. The House Report

The House Report containing the legislative history of § 1102(b)(3) sheds little light on the application of this provision:

Section 405(b) requires the committee to give creditors having claims of the kind represented by the committee access to information. In addition, the committee must solicit and receive comments from these creditors and, pursuant to court order, make additional reports or disclosures available to them.

H.R.Rep. No. 109-31, at 87 (2005), reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 88,153.

This statement does not provide any meaningful guidance regarding the type of information to which access must be given or the manner in which it should be communicated. Accord, In re Refco Inc., 336 B.R. 187, 190 n. 1 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2006). In addition, the House Report does not indicate whether an official creditors’ committee faces any sanctions, other than being subject to a court order compelling the provision of additional information, if the committee does not provide adequate access to relevant information about the case. Id.

B. Caselaw

The only published opinion on the application of § 1102(b)(3) is the Refco opinion by Judge Robert Drain, which sets forth a masterful and detailed consideration of this section in light of its history and policy. Judge Drain based his analysis on the similar duties imposed on chapter 7 trustees by § 704(7) and the caselaw thereunder, on similar provisions under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 and the limited caselaw thereunder, and on the function of a creditors’ committee in a chapter 11 bankruptcy case. See Refco, 336 B.R. at 192-98.

Judge Drain found three propositions relating to a chapter 7 trustee’s duties that apply to a committee of creditors under *549 § 1102(b)(3)(A). First, a chapter 7 trustee has a fairly extensive duty under § 704(7) to keep parties in interest informed. Refco, 336 B.R. at 193 (citing Pineiro v. PBGC, 318 F.Supp.2d 67, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). Second, the § 704(7) duty of a chapter 7 trustee is limited and does not include providing privileged information or information that is proprietary or confidential. Refco, 336 B.R. at 193. Third, a trustee’s right to a protective order is informed by the trustee’s fiduciary duties to creditors and the estate. Id.

In addition, Judge Drain emphasized the pivotal role of creditors’ committees in the bankruptcy process. Their diverse functions, he stated, should be considered in determining creditors’ committees’ duties under § 1102(b)(3):

Official committees have diverse duties: they are the primary negotiating bodies for a chapter 11 plan; they also provide supervision of the debtor and execute an oversight function; they may investigate the debtor’s assets and affairs; and they may perform such other services as are in the interest of the unsecured creditor body.

Id. at 195 (citing Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Doan (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 26 B.R. 919, 925 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1983)). Many of the functions of a creditors’ committee, Judge Drain noted, require the acquisition and preservation of confidential information, including information protected by the attorney-client privilege and counsel’s duties of confidentiality. Creditors who are not members of the committee generally should not be provided access to this confidential information, he stated. 4

The court in Refco recognized that the application of § 1102(b)(3)(A) requires a balancing of a committee’s duties of disclosure to its constituents (usually the unsecured creditors) with the need to protect sensitive information, to preserve the attorney-client privilege and (where applicable) to comply with securities laws.

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

Related

In Re Refco Inc.
336 B.R. 187 (S.D. New York, 2006)
Pineiro v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
318 F. Supp. 2d 67 (S.D. New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
421 B.R. 546, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 2259, 51 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 284, 2009 WL 2567017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-s-b-surgery-center-inc-cacb-2009.