In Re Texaco Inc.

79 B.R. 551, 17 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1084, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 1746, 16 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 784
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 30, 1987·No. 18-12493·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

DECISION ON MOTION FOR RULE 2004 EXAMINATIONS

HOWARD SCHWARTZBERG, Bankruptcy Judge.

On September 11, 1987, Pennzoil Company (“Pennzoil”), the largest unsecured creditor in these administratively consolidated Chapter 11 cases, filed its motion for an order pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code directing the debtor Texaco Inc. (“Texaco”) to produce a broad range of documents for examination and copying. The Pennzoil motion also seeks an order directing certain top officers and employees of Texaco to appear for examination upon oral deposition.

Pursuant to a motion dated September 17, 1987, Texaco moved for an order adjourning Pennzoil’s motion so that Texaco could have adequate time to prepare and file its response to Pennzoil’s motion. Pennzoil’s motion was adjourned to October 6, 1987 and thereafter to October 28, 1987, the hearing date. The adjournments were made in order to await Texaco’s production of documents requested by the Committee of Industry Unsecured Creditors (the “Industry Committee”).

By a notice dated September 30, 1987, Pennzoil sought a supplemental production of documents from Texaco in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 7034, which incorporated Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pennzoil agreed that there would be no discovery efforts during the adjournment of the hearing with respect to its Rule 2004 motion.

Pursuant to a motion dated October 16, 1987, Texaco moved to take the depositions of nine individuals, including two of Pennzoil’s financial advisors and two of Pennzoil’s attorneys in these cases. Additionally, Texaco requested that each of the proposed deponents produce a vast quantity of documents concerning Texaco’s affairs which related to many of the same subjects which were covered in Pennzoil’s production request. Texaco contends that its discovery request is directed at developing evidence to prove that Pennzoil’s motive in pursuing its Rule 2004 motion is to harass and pressure Texaco in order to compel Texaco to accept Pennzoil’s disputed judgment claim.

Texaco Inc. and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Texaco Capital Inc. and Texaco Capital N.Y., are debtors in possession as a result of their each having filed Chapter 11 cases in this court on April 12, 1987. On the same day, the court entered an order directing that the Chapter 11 case be jointly administered pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1015(b). Texaco and its two subsidiaries are operating their businesses and managing their properties as debtors in possession in accordance with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.

PENNZOIL’S MOTION

As a judgment creditor holding the largest unsecured claim against Texaco, Pennzoil’s claim, as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(4), gives Pennzoil the status of a creditor within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(9)(A). A creditor is clearly a party in interest, as expressed in 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b). Accordingly, as a party in interest, Pennzoil is entitled to seek a Rule 2004 examination of the debtor, Texaco Inc. The scope of this examination is stated in subsection (b) of Rule 2004 to relate “to the acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the debtor’s estate ...”. Additionally, in a Chapter 11 case, the examination “may also relate to the operation of *553 any business and ... any other matter relevant ... to the formulation of a plan.”

At this juncture in these cases, Pennzoil has had the benefit of the financial information that Texaco has supplied to the Industry Committee, in view of the fact that Pennzoil is a member of and has a representative serving as co-chairman of that committee. Both the Industry Committee and the General Unsecured Creditors’ Committee indicated at the hearing that they are now satisfied with the flow of information they are receiving from Texaco and, therefore, do not join in Pennzoil’s motion. However, Pennzoil’s interests are not identical with those of the other members of the Industry Committee because its exposure is greater. Not only is Pennzoil’s claim the largest one in these cases, but unlike the other members of its committee, Pennzoil’s judgment claim is heatedly disputed by Texaco. Hence, Pennzoil reasons that it needs more information about Texaco’s finances than other Committee members in order to protect its position.

Rule 2004 affords a party in interest an opportunity to conduct a wide-ranging examination with respect to a debtor’s financial affairs. In re Johns-Manville Corp., 42 B.R. 362 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984); In re Silverman, 36 B.R. 254 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984); In re Frigitemp, 15 B.R. 263 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1981). However, the scope of the examination is not limitless; the examination should not be so broad as -to be more disruptive and costly to the debtor than beneficial to the creditor. In light of the fact that Texaco is furnishing financial information to the General Unsecured Creditors’ Committee, the Industry Committee, the Shareholders’ Committee and to the accountants for these Committees, and that Texaco will also be required to furnish information to investment advisors who have recently been authorized to be retained by these Committees, it follows that Pennzoil’s requested examination should not encompass matters that will be unduly burdensome to the debtor and duplicative of previously furnished information or will not be required in order to evaluate or propose a plan of reorganization.

For purposes of document production, Pennzoil has broadly defined the word “document” to mean:

...

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

In Re Texaco Inc., 79 B.R. 551, 17 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1084, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 1746, 16 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 784 (N.Y. 1987).

79 B.R. 551 (In Re Texaco Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Celsius Network LLC
S.D. New York, 2022
In Re Youk-See
450 B.R. 312 (D. Massachusetts, 2011)
In Re Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
384 B.R. 373 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 2008)
In Re Hammond
131 B.R. 78 (S.D. Ohio, 1991)
In Re Fearn
96 B.R. 135 (S.D. Ohio, 1989)