In re U.S. Fidelis, Inc.

481 B.R. 503, 2012 WL 5418926, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 5308
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedAugust 28, 2012
DocketNo. 10-41902-705
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 481 B.R. 503 (In re U.S. Fidelis, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re U.S. Fidelis, Inc., 481 B.R. 503, 2012 WL 5418926, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 5308 (Mo. 2012).

Opinion

ORDER OVERRULING THE OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN AND MEMORANDUM OPINION IN SUPPORT OF CONFIRMATION

CHARLES E. RENDLEN, Bankruptcy Judge.

On June 5, 2012, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “UCC”) filed a First Amended Plan of Liquidation (the “First Amended Plan”) [Docket No. 1097] and a First Amended Disclosure Statement [Docket No. 1098]. On July 3, 2012, the UCC filed a supplement to the First Amended Plan [Docket No. 1129], On July 9, 2012, three creditors, including Jackie L. High (collectively, the “High Objectors”), filed a joint objection to confirmation of the First Amended Plan (the “High Objection”) [Docket No. 1135], On July 10, 2012, the UCC filed an additional supplement to the First Amended Plan (together with the July 3 supplement, the “Plan Supplements”) [Docket No. 1144], On July 13, 2012, a modified version of the First Amended Plan (the “First Amended Plan, as Modified”) [Docket No. 1167] was filed with leave of the Court.

On July 16, 2012, the hearing on confirmation of the First Amended Plan, as Modified was held. The High Objectors did not appear at the hearing. Uncontested evidence was admitted in support of confirmation, including declarations and affidavits (including those at Docket Nos. 1148, 1149, 1153, 1157, 1161, and 1161). No testimony or other evidence controverting these declarations and affidavits was offered, and the Court FINDS the representations therein to be reliable and persuasive, and adopts them as findings of fact. Also at the hearing, the First Amended Plan, as Modified was further modified to include a carve-out in favor of the High Objectors (the “Carve-Out”). This orally made Carve-Out was reduced to writing following the hearing [Docket # 1182], As a result, the confirmed plan (the “Plan”) consists of the First Amended Plan, as Modified, the Plan Supplements, and the Carve-Out.

Consistent with its bench ruling, the Court now makes the following findings of facts and conclusions of law in support of confirmation of the Plan, and ORDERS that the High Objection be OVERRULED as set forth herein.1

I. FACTS

The Formation, Operation, and Demise of the Debtor. In 2003, the Debtor was formed by two scam artist brothers with prior criminal histories, Darain and [508]*508Cory Atkinson (together, the “brothers” or the “Atkinsons”).2 The Debtor provided telephonic direct-marketing of vehicle service contracts (each, a “VSC”).3 A VSC is an aftermarket contract whereby a non-manufacturer third-party, known as an administrator, agrees to cover the repair costs of the vehicle of the contract purchaser (the “consumer”).4 The marketing of the VSCs by the Debtor involved no verification of creditworthiness of the consumer. The Debtor sold more than 650,-000 VSCs between 2004 and 2009.

The Debtor did not enter into the VSC directly with the consumer. Instead, it pitched the VSC to the consumer on behalf of an administrator, and the administrator entered into the VSC with the consumer. The majority of the VSC purchases were financed, and the Debtor provided to the consumer a financing agreement, pursuant to which the consumer and yet-another entity, the financier (but not the Debtor), were the contracting parties.

The financed purchase of a VSC set into motion a complex system of advances and payments among and between the four parties involved with the VSC business model (the Debtor, the administrator, the financer, and the financer’s insurer). When a VSC was cancelled, things became even more complicated. Commissions and advances paid to the Debtor and the administrator had to be refunded; holdbacks, offsets and guaranties had to be calculated; and in some cases, consumer refunds were required.

By 2009, the Debtor was near collapse, amid high cancellation rates and the Atkin-sons’ treating the Debtor as their personal ATM. It also was facing investigations from numerous attorneys general (the states attorneys general, along with the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, collectively, the “Attorneys General”) for deceptive trade practices and other issues. The breaking point came on December 7, 2009, when Mepco Finance Corporation (“Mepco”5), the principal financer, advised that it would no longer finance VSC contracts. Shortly thereafter, the Debtor stopped marketing VSCs and made several rounds of mass layoffs.

The Bankruptcy Case. On March 1, 2010 (the “Petition Date”), the Debtor filed a petition for relief [Docket No. 1] under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”6), thereby commencing this case (the “Case”). On March 11, 2010, the UCC was appointed [Docket No. 40] and soon became the oarsman of the Case. The Case was often contentious, marked by palpable hostility in darker moments. Within the first month of the Case, an adversary proceeding was brought by former employees claiming WARN Act violations [Adv. Proc. [509]*509Case No. 10-4160], the Attorney General for the State of Missouri filed a motion to appoint a trustee [Docket No. 41], and the UCC brought an adversary proceeding for an extension of the automatic stay [Adv. Proc. No. 10-4172], seeking to enjoin numerous parties, including the Atkinsons’ personal creditors, from satisfying judgments from the Atkinsons’ personal assets.

The Temporary Restraining Order. Despite these dynamics, on April 13, 2010, a preliminary injunction was entered [Adv. Proc. No. 10-4172, Docket No. 24]. The injunction halted the race-to-the-courthouse that was occurring outside the Case, whereby the Atkinsons’ personal creditors were seeking to obtain the personal assets of the Atkinsons and their wives — assets that had been siphoned off the Debtor. If those assets had been seized by the Atkin-sons’ creditors, the ability of the UCC to recover those assets for the estate later would have been seriously jeopardized. The injunction also bought the UCC time to ascertain the financial relationship between the Atkinsons and the Debtor. Eventually, a deal was struck, whereby the brothers returned to the estate almost all their assets.

The UCC-Mepco-Warrantech Litigation. Following the settlement with the Atkinsons, the parties turned their focus to other issues that needed to be resolved. However, after months of negotiating and posturing among the parties, there were no resolutions, and adversary proceedings between and among the UCC, Mepco, and Warrantech Automotive, Inc. and Vemeco, Inc. (two administrators; together, “War-rantech”) were commenced.7 These actions would have been expensive and lengthy to litigate, and offered little certainty of result to any party. By the end of the summer of 2011, the Case again stood perilously close to becoming an operation for paying attorneys and sorting out secured creditors’ interests, instead of returning a distribution to the unsecured creditors and the Debtor’s consumer victims.

On September 19, 2012, several Attorneys General filed a Joint Motion to Compel Parties to Mediation [Docket No. 881], asking the Court to authorize a global mediation of the major pending matters. On October 26, 2011, the Court entered an order [Docket No. 992] authorizing mediation before another bankruptcy judge of this District. The Court provided for the participation of all major parties that had been actively involved in the Case, and did not exclude any party that requested to participate.

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

Related

Kalos Capital, Inc.
N.D. Georgia, 2023
In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.
Second Circuit, 2023
Peter Paul Kowalczyk, Jr.
D. North Dakota, 2019
In re Kowalczyk
600 B.R. 806 (D. North Dakota, 2019)
In re Midway Gold US, Inc.
575 B.R. 475 (D. Colorado, 2017)
In re Irish Bank Resolution Corp.
559 B.R. 627 (D. Delaware, 2016)
In re Sandpoint Cattle Co.
556 B.R. 408 (D. Nebraska, 2016)
In re SCBA Liquidation, Inc.
489 B.R. 666 (W.D. Michigan, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
481 B.R. 503, 2012 WL 5418926, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 5308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-us-fidelis-inc-moeb-2012.