In Re Sunnyside Timber, LLC

351 B.R. 388, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 2550
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Louisiana
DecidedMay 16, 2006
Docket19-10123
StatusPublished

This text of 351 B.R. 388 (In Re Sunnyside Timber, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Sunnyside Timber, LLC, 351 B.R. 388, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 2550 (La. 2006).

Opinion

REASONS FOR DECISION

GERALD H. SCHIFF, Bankruptcy Judge.

On June 6, 2000 (“Petition Date”), involuntary petitions for relief were filed against Sunnyside Timber, L.L.C. (“Timber”) and Sunnyside Land, L.L.C. (“Land”, and with Timber, “Debtors”). The Debtors consented to the entry of relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on August 17, 2000.

After substantial but unsuccessful efforts were made at reorganization, both cases were converted to chapter 7. The chapter 7 trustees for Land and Timber are Elizabeth G. Andrus and Lucy G. Sikes, respectively (collectively, “Trustees”).

The Debtors’ sole tangible asset consisted of approximately 26,000 acres of real property, including substantial timber, in Utah. At the time of the Debtors’ acquisition of the property, the timber estate was separated from the real property so that Land became the owner of the real property while Timber acquired the timber growing thereon.

Years of litigation ensued in the chapter 11 proceeding and into the chapter 7 case. Ultimately, the Trustees filed a Motion to Approve Compromise and Settlement (“Settlement Motion”), the settlement being based upon that certain Term Sheet as to Settlement of Sunnyside Land and Sun-nyside Timber Litigation (“Term Sheet”). The Term Sheet was attached to and incorporated by reference into the Settlement Motion. On December 1, 2004, the court approved the Settlement Motion as being in the best interest of the two estates.

Reflecting the complex nature of these bankruptcies 1 , the Term Sheet required multiple performances by several parties, all of which were interconnected with one another. In addition to the Trustees, others executing the Term Sheet included Washington State Bancshares, Inc. (“Banc-shares”), D. Creig Brignac, Sue S. Brignac, Regions Bank, S.C. of Okaloosa, Inc. (“SCO”) 2 .

Generally speaking, the Term Sheet provided for the Trustees to conduct a sale of the Utah property pursuant to section 363, with SCO being obligated to offer credit bids of $6.3 million for the real property *390 and $3.3 million for the timber. The Term Sheet also provided that the “Brignac or his assigns will loan the sum of $550,000 to the Trustees ... to enable the Trustees to pay the sum of $325,000 to Regions as collateral assignee of S.C.O. towards the payment of the remaining balance of the S.C.O./St. Landry Bank note.” At that point, Regions and SCO would waive any claim under the lender’s title policy and all claims of SCO and Regions would be withdrawn. Further, upon the closing of the Trustees’ sale and the funding of the loan to the Trustees, S.C.O. and Regions would release the Brignac’s stock in Bancshares which had been previously pledged as security.

Pursuant to the Term Sheet, the Trustees issued a Notice of Sale of the Debtors’ land and timber located in Utah to S.C.O. or the highest bidder. SCO’s credit bid was the highest and best offer, and, on February 1, 2005, the court entered an Order Approving the Sale of Real Property and Standing Timber to SCO Free and Clear of all Liens, Claims, Interest, Mortgages and Encumbrances. The Trustees thereafter delivered a deed in escrow to Robert Reynolds, counsel for Regions, in order to advance the performances by the other parties to the Term Sheet.

Thereafter, on July 22, 2005, SCO sold the Sunnyside property for the sum of $13 million. Based upon the sales price, the obligation to Regions was satisfied. The Trustees, Bancshares and Brignac therefore contend that there is no obligation to pay the $325,000 to either Regions or SCO. SCO, however, argues that the Term Sheet clearly provides that the money is due regardless of the existence of an obligation to Regions. SCO further contends that the $325,000 is and always was SCO’s money, which was supposed to be paid to the holder of the St. Landry Bank Note in exchange for the release of the Bancshares stock. SCO has not received the $325,000 and has not released the stock.

Presently before the court are the following motions: (1) MOTION TO CONFIRM AND APPROVE PERFORMANCE PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by the Trustees, Brignac and Bancshares; (2) MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF PROPER PAYMENT filed by the Trustees; and (3) MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS filed by SCO. A hearing on all matters was held on November 8, 2005. After hearing argument from counsel and receiving post-hearing briefs, the matters were taken under advisement.

JURISDICTION

The case has been referred to this court by the Standing Order of Reference entered in this district which is set forth as Rule 83.4.1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. No party in interest has requested a withdrawal of the reference. The court finds that this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

These Reasons for Decision constitute the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 7052, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

The parties have vigorously argued their relative positions and have provided the court with detailed memoranda. In a nutshell, however, the core issue is the interpretation of one provision of the Term Sheet. A cursory examination of that document suggests a heavily-negotiated agreement which was reviewed and modified more times than the court can imagine and which contains more pages of signa *391 tures than substance. This is not to say that the one disputed provision is insignificant to any of the parties.

The court considers the ultimate issue to be whether the $325,000 mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Term Sheet was required to be paid even if no balance remained to be paid on the S.C.O./St. Landry Bank note. Those two paragraphs read in their entirety as follows:

2. Within ten (10) days after the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of this settlement and the closing of the § 363 sale under the terms of this agreement, Mr. Brignac or his assigns will loan the sum of $550,000.00 to the trustee for Sunnyside Land and Timber (or in amounts as prorated by the Trustees) to enable the Trustees to pay the sum of $325,000 to Regions as collateral assignee of S.C.O. towards the payment of the remaining balance of the S.C.O./St. Landry Bank note, the surrender of the S.C.O. lenders’ title policy to the Trustees, the withdrawal with prejudice by S.C.O. of any claims in the bankruptcy cases, existing administrative expenses and maintain a reserve to provide for a distribution to unsecured creditors. This $550,000 super priority loan shall be repaid with interest at a variable rate equal to Wall Street Prime plus one-half percent adjusted daily, together with all appropriate legal fees and costs from the net proceeds of the recovery against FATCO without further order of the court.
3. The Trustees shall, upon approval of this settlement, the closing of the § 363 sale as contemplated by this agreement and funding of the loan by Mr.

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

Related

Procedures
28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
351 B.R. 388, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 2550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sunnyside-timber-llc-lawb-2006.