Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 1 of 40
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWAR
In re:
)
Chapter 11
EXARIS, INC., and
1 INX USA, LTD.,
) )
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 07-10887 (KG) Case No. 07-10888 (KG)
Debtors.
DR. JACK KACHKA,
Appellant
v.
Civil Action No. 07-621 (GMS)
WESTERNAN PUERTO RICO,
STEPHEN S. GRAY, Chapter 11
) )
) ) ) ) )
)
Trustee ofINX USA, LTD.
Appellees.
BRIEF OF APPELLEE
CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE OF INYX USA. LTD.
Richard Pachulski
Bruce Grohsgal (DE Bar No. 3583)
PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP 919 North Market Street, 17th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Telephone: (302) 652-4100 Facsimile: (302) 652-4400
EmaI1: bgrohsgal(êpszjlaw.com
Attorneys for the Chapter 11 Trustee of Inyx USA, Ltd.
Dated: April
14, 2008
i The Exaeris, Inc. and Inyx USA, Ltd. bankptcy cases were jointly administered for procedural puroses
at the commencement of those cases, by order entered on July 12, 2007 (Docket No. 39 in Bankptcy Case 07-10887). On December 6, 2007 (Docket No. 421 in Bankptcy Case No. 07-10887), the Bankptcy Cour vacated the order for joint admnistration, and the bankptcy cases have been separately
No. admstered since the entr of
that order.
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 2 of 40
Table of Contents
PAGE
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 1
ISSUES PRESENTED..................................................... .................................................. 4
1. Is Kachkar's appeal from the Final Westembank Financing
Order moot pursuant to section 364 ( e) of the Banptcy Code because the Banptcy Cour found that
Westemban extended the Westemban financing in good
faith to the Debtor, which Kachkar's counsel acknowledged, admitted and agreed to at the August 23,
2007 hearing on the Westembank financing? ................................4
2. Is Kachkar's appeal from the Final Westemban Financing
Order moot because the liens granted to Westembank pursuant to the Final Westemban Financing Order appealed from do not, contrary to Kachkar's assertions, prime any lien previously granted to Kachkar pursuant to the interim Kachkar DIP Order? ................................................... 5
3. Is the Bankptcy Court's interpretation of
its interim Kachkar DIP Order clearly erroneous with respect to the
extent ofthe liens granted to Kachkar by the interim
Kachkar DIP Order, on which interpretation depends the question of whether those liens were primed by the Final Westemban Financing Order? ..................................................... 5
4. Are the Bankptcy Cour's 'specific findings that the Westembank financing was negotiated and extended in
good faith and at arm's length between the Chapter 11
Trustee and Westemban, and for valid business puroses
and uses, and hence that Westembank is entitled to the protections and benefits of secti 364( e) of the Bankptcy
Code, clearly erroneous?............................................................... 5
STANDAR OF APPELLATE REVIEW................. ..... ................ ......... ...................... ... 5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE...... ..................................... ......................................... ...... 6
A. Background.................... ........ .......................................... .................... ...... 6
B. The Interim Kachkar DIP Order ................................................................ 7
C. Appointment of
the Trustee and the Westembank Financing ................... 8
ARGUMENT................................................................................................................... 17
i. KACHK'S APPEAL FROM THE FINAL WESTERNAN FINANCING
ORDER IS MOOT............................................................................................... 17
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 3 of 40
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
Page(s)
A. Westembank Extended the Westemban Financing in Good Faith
to the Chapter 11 Trustee Pursuant to the Final Westemban
Financing Order....... ........ ............ ........................................... ........... ...... 17
B. Kachkar Did Not Seek or Obtain a Stay ofthe Final Westembank
Financing Order....................................................................................... 18
II. THE FINAL WESTERNAN FINANCING ORDER DOES NOT
IMERMISSIBLY PROVIDE FOR THE PRIING OF THE LIENS
GRATED TO KACHKA BY THE INTERI KACHK DIP ORDER NOR AR THE BANUPTCY COURT'S FININGS
CLEARY ERRONEOUS, ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN ERROR, OR ITS DECISION AN ABUSE OR DISCRETION .........................................23
A. The Liens Granted to Westembank Do Not Impermissibly Prime
Any Lien of
Kachkar Entitled to Priority................................................ 23
B. The Bankptcy Cour's Interpretation of
its Interim Kachkar DIP Order is Not Clearly Erroneous with respect to the Extent and Priority ofthe Liens granted to Kachkar by the Interim Kachkar DIP Order, on which Interpretation Depends the Question of
Whether Those Liens were Primed by the Final Westemban
Financing Order............................... ......... ............................... ................ 25
C. The Chapter 11 Trustee's Waivers of the Doctrine of Marshaling, the Equities of the Case Doctrne, and Surcharge Rights, and the
Payment of Proceeds Provision of the Final Westemban Financing Order, Were Justified and Appropriate and Authorization ofthese Provisions by the Banptcy Cour as a Necessary Condition ofthe Westembank Financing Was Not Clearly Erroneous........................ .................... ........................................ 29
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 33
11
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 4 of 40
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Boulloun Aircraft Holding Co. v. Smith Mgmt. (In re W. Pac. Airlines, Inc.), 181 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................... 21
Burchinal v. Cent. Wash. Bank (In re Adams Apple, Inc.), 829 F.2d 1484 (9th Cir. 1987) ...................................................................................... 20
Creditors' Comm. v. Spada (In re Spada), 903 F.2d 971 (3d Cir. 1990) ........................... 5
Debbie Reynolds Management Co. v. Calstar Corp. (In re Debbie Reynolds Hotel & Casino, Inc.), 255 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................... 30
Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, NA., 530 U.S. 1 (2000).......................................................................................................... 30
In re Abbotts Dairies of Pa., Inc., 788 F.2d 143 (3d Cir. 1986) ........................................................................................... 5
In re Am. Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc.,
Ch. 11 Case No. 07-11047 (CSS) (Ban. D. DeL. Nov. 28, 2007) .............................. 30
In re Ames Dep 't Stores, Inc., 115 B.R. 34 (Bank. S.D.N.Y. 1990)............................................................................33
In re Buffets Holdings Inc.,
Ch. 11 Case No. 08-10141 (MFW) (Ban. D. DeL. Feb. 22,2008) ............................29
In re Domain, Inc., Ch. 11 Case No. 08-10132 (PJW) (Bank. D. DeL. Feb 14,2008) ...............................29
In re EDC Holding Co., 676 F.2d 945 (7th Cir. 1982) .....................................................20
In re Fla. W. Gateway, Inc.,
147 B.R. 817 (Bank. S.D. Fla. 1992) .......................................................................... 22
In re Foamex Intl, Inc., Ch. 11 Case No. 05-12685 (PJW) (Bank. D. DeL. Oct. 17,2005)...............................30
In re HomeBanc Mortgage Corp., Ch. 11 Case No. 07-11079 (KJC) (Bank. D. DeL. Sept. 13,2007)..............................30
In re New Century TRS Holdings,
Ch. 11 Case No. 07-10416 (KJC) (Bank. D. DeL. May 7,2007)................................. 30
11
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 5 of 40
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
Page(s)
In re Sharon Steel Corp., 871 F.2d 1217 (3d Cir. 1999) ......................................................................................... 5
In re Sharper Image Corp., Ch. 11 Case No. 08-10322 (KG) (Bank. D. DeL. Mar. 7,2008).................................. 29
In re The Colad Group, Inc., 324 B.R. 208 (Ban. W.D.N.Y. 2005) .................................................................. 31, 32
In re Tweeter Home Entm 't Group,
Ch. 11 Case No. 07-10787 (PJW) (Bank. D. DeL. June 29, 2007) .............................. 30
Kham & Nate's Shoes No.2, Inc. v. First Bank of Whiting,
908 F.2d 1351 (7th Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................... 20
Meridian Bank v. Alten,
958 F.2d 1226 (3d Cir. 1992) ......................................................................................... 5
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Swedeland Dev., Inc. (In re Swedeland Dev., Inc.),
16 F.3d 552 (3d Cir. 1994) ........................................................................... 4, 18, 19,22
Unsecured Creditors Comm. v. First Nat 'i Bank & Trust Co. (In re Ellngsen MacLean
Oil Co.),
834 F.2d 599 (6th Cir. 1987) ........................................................................................ 21
Weinstein, Eisen & Weiss, LLP v. Gil (In re Cooper Commons, LLC), 430 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005)............................................................................................................... 21
White Rose Food v. Gen. Trading Co. (In re Clinton St Food Corp.), 170 B.R. 216 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)......................................................................................21
Statutes
11 U.S. C. § 101.............. ......... ..................... ..... .............................................. .................... 1
11 U.S.C. § 361 (2) ................................ ..... ...................................................... ................. 28
11 U.S.C. § 363..................................... ............................................................................ 28
11 U.S. C. § 363( a) ............................................................................................................ 28
11 U. S. C. § 3 64( e) ..................................................................................................... passim
11 U. S. C. § 552........................................................................................................... 10, 24
iv
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 6 of 40
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
Page(s)
11 U.S. C. § 5 52(b ) ..................................................................................................... passim
11 U.S.C. § 552(b)(I) ................................................................................................. 24, 26
11 U. S. C. § 5 52(b )(2) ....................................................................................................... 24
Rules
DeL. Bank. L.R. 400 1-2( a)(1 )
(A) ........... ............ ....................... ................. ...................... 31
DeL. Ban. L.R. 400 1-2( a)(1 )(B) ............ ..... .............. ................ ............... ....................... 31
DeL. Bank. L.R. 400 1-2( a)(1 )(E) .... ....... ................ ....... ....... ....... ................. .................... 31
DeL. Bank. L.R. 4001- 2(b ) ............................................................................................... 32
Fed. R. Bank. P. 8013... ................................ ..................... .................. ........... ........ ........... 5
v
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 7 of 40
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Appellant, Dr. Jack Kachkar ("Kachkar"), has appealed from the final
financing order of the United States Banptcy Cour for the Distrct of
Delaware (the
"Bankptcy Court") entered on September 7,2007 (Docket No. 179 in Bankptcy Case.
No. 07-10887) (the "Final Westemban Financing Order"). The Final Westemban
Financing Order authorized Stephen S. Gray, the duly-appointed chapter 11 trustee (the
"Chapter 11 Trustee" or "Appellee") for the debtor Inyx USA, Ltd. ("Invx USA"), to
obtain postpetition credit and borrow from Westemban Puerto Rico ("Westemban") in
the aggregate amount of
up to $3,373,100 for the period August 15,2007 through and
the Banptcy Code.1
including November 30,2007, pursuant to section 364 of
Westemban also was Inyx USA's prepetition lender.
The Appellant, Kachkar, did not seek or obtain a stay of the financing
pursuant to the Final Westembank Financing Order or with respect to any of the
provisions of
that order. The Westembank financing, pursuant to the Bankptcy Court's
the Final Westemban Financing Order, was extended by
findings in paragraph G of
Westemban to the debtor Inyx USA in good faith pursuant to section 364 (e) of
the
Banptcy Code. The loan proceeds were fully disbursed by Westembank to Inyx USA,
in good faith, and in accordance with and for the puroses set forth in the Final
Westembank Financing Order.
1 The provisions of 11 U.S.c. § 101 et seq. are referred to herein as the "Bankptcy
Code."
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 8 of 40
The Appellant, Kachkar, now seeks reversal ofthe Final Westemban
Financing Order and the terms and conditions of such order, and remand to the
Banptcy Cour with instrctions to "preserve the lead position afforded by the
Kachkar DIP Order,,,2 pursuant to which order Kachkar previously had advanced
postpetition financing both to Exaeris, Inc. and to Inyx USA, prior to the appointment of
Stephen S. Gray
as the Chapter 11 Trustee in the Inyx USA case. The Appellant,
the Final Westembank Financing Order he was
Kachkar, further asserts that by entry of
deprived of, and should be granted upon such remand, "first priority secured post-petition
liens upon (i) all unencumbered property ofthe Debtors' estates not subject to prior valid,
perfected first priority security interests of any pary, and (ii) all post-Petition Date
property of the Debtors" other than avoidance actions under Chapter 5 of the Banptcy
Code and other than the proceeds of such avoidance actions.3 Finally, the Appellant asks
this Cour to reverse certain lender protection provisions and other provisions of the Final
Westembank Financing Order, including replacement liens granted to Westembank to
adequately protect Westemban to the extent of any diminution in value of its prepetition
2 The interim Kachkar DIP Order is defined by the Appellant on page 3 of Appellant's
Brief as the order entered by the Bankptcy Cour on July 12, 2007 (Docket No. 43 in Bankptcy Case No. 07-10887), authorizing Kachkar to advance financing on an interim basis to both Exaeris, Inc. and to Inyx USA, and that definition is utilized herein. The Appellant, Kachkar, sought but did not obtain a good faith finding in the interim Kachkar
DIP Order. The Bankptcy Court, following the hearng on the interim Kachkar DIP Order, excised the proposed good faith finding in the interim Kachkar DIP Order prior to
entering such order. See, excised paragraph F ofthe Kachkar DIP Order. Final approval of the Kachkar financing was never obtained, and a final order on the Kachkar financing
has not been entered.
3 Appellant's Brief, p. 45.
2
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 9 of 40
collateral,4 waivers of
marshaling, equities of
the case, and surcharge, and the payment of
its Lender's
proceeds provision that requires Westemban to be paid the proceeds of
Collateral in payment of
its loans.s
The Appellant, Kachkar, an insider ofInyx USA and Exaeris, Inc. (the
"Debtors"), seeks such remand and instruction from this Cour notwithstanding his faI1ure
to seek or obtain a stay and the express provisions of section 364 ( e) applicable to appeals
from postpetition financing orders. Pursuant to section 364(e) of
the Banptcy Code,
in circumstances of an authorized postpetition loan that has been fully disbursed, no
reversal or modification on appeal can "affect the validity of any debt so incurred, or any
priority or lien so granted, to an entity that extended such credit in good faith," unless
"the incurrng of such debt, or the granting of such priority or lien, were stayed pending
appeaL" It is beyond dispute that no such stay was obtained. Accordingly, the liens and
priority granted to Westembank pursuant to the Final Westembank Financing Order may
not be affected by this appeaL. Even were the Bankptcy Code to provide otherwise
(which it does not), the Appellant, Kachkar, has failed to show that the Final
Westemban Financing Order impermissibly primed the liens granted to him by the
interim Kachkar DIP Order. The Kachkar appeal is moot and should be dismissed.
4 Appellant's Brief, p. 39.
S Appellant's Brief, p. 39-44.
3
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 10 of 40
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Swedeland Dev., Inc. (In re Swedeland Dev., Inc.), 16 F.3d 552,
562-63 (3d Cir. 1994).
With respect to the additional "non-lien" lender protections granted to
Westernbank by the Final Westernban Financing Order, by the marshalling, equities of
the case and surcharge waivers complained of
by Kachkar, the Banptcy Cour
correctly determined to grant those protections because without them Westernbank would
not lend and Inyx USA would have been unable to fud its operations. Similarly, the
payment of proceeds provision of
the Final Westernbank Financing Order requires
Western
merely that the Westernbank loans be paid from the proceeds of
bank's
"Lender's CollateraL." The Banptcy Court's decision with respect to these provisions
was not clearly erroneous and should be upheld.
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Is Kachkar's appeal from the Final Westernbank Financing Order
moot pursuant to section 364 (e) of
the Bankptcy Code because the Banptcy Court
found that Westernban extended the Westernbank financing in good faith to the Debtor,
which Kachkar's counsel acknowledged, admitted and agreed to at the August 23,2007
hearng on the Westernban financing?6
6 Transcript of
Banptcy Cour Hearng held on August 23,2007, page 11, lines 3-6,
referred to herein as "D-I0." All references to items designated for inclusion in the Record are referred to record in Appellant's Statement oflssues and Designation of herein as "D-_." All references to items designated for inclusion in the record in the
Chapter 11 Trustee's Counter-Designation of
Record and Counter-Statement oflssues are
referred to herein as "CDT - ."
4
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 11 of 40
2. Is Kachkar's appeal from the Final Westernbank Financing Order
moot because the liens granted to Westernban pursuant to the Final Westernban
Financing Order appealed from do not, contrary to Kachkar's assertions, prime any lien previously granted to Kachkar pursuant to the interim Kachkar DIP Order?
3. Is the Bankptcy Cour's interpretation of
its interim Kachkar DIP
Order clearly erroneous with respect to the extent of
the liens granted to Kachkar by the
interim Kachkar DIP Order, on which interpretation depends the question of
whether
those liens were primed by the Final Westernbank Financing Order?
4. Are the Bankptcy Court's specific findings that the Westernban
financing was negotiated and extended in good faith and at ar's length between the
Chapter 11 Trustee and Westernbank, and for valid business purposes and uses, and
hence that Westernbank is entitled to the protections and benefits of secti 364( e) of the
Bankptcy Code, clearly erroneous?
STANDAR OF APPELLATE REVIEW
A bankptcy court's findings of
fact are not to be set aside unless clearly
erroneous. See Fed. R. Ban. P. 8013; Creditors' Comm. v. Spada (In re Spada), 903
F.2d 971,975 (3d Cir. 1990). Conclusions oflaw are subject to de novo review. In re
Abbotts Dairies ofPa., Inc., 788 F.2d 143, 147 (3d Cir. 1986). The Cour considering an
appeal must "break down mixed questions of law and fact, applying the appropriate
standard to each component." Meridian Bank v. Alten, 958 F.2d 1226, 1229 (3d Cir.
1992), citing, In re Sharon Steel Corp., 871 F.2d 1217, 1222 (3d Cir. 1999).
5
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 12 of 40
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Facts applicable to this appeal are set forth in the findings of fact made by
the Bankptcy Court in the interim Kachkar DIP Order and the Final Westernban
Financing Order are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. Certain of
those facts and
other relevant facts are set forth below and are referred to in connection with Appellee's
arguent.
A. Backl!round
On July 2,2007 (the "Petition Date"), each ofthe Debtors, Exaeris, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, and Inyx USA, an Isle of
Man corporation, commenced a
voluntary case under chapter 11 ofthe Bankptcy Code in the Distrct of Delaware. The
chapter 11 cases were referred to United States Bankptcy Judge Kevin Gross. D-l.
The declaration in support of
the Debtors' first day motions and applications, dated July
6,2007, was executed by Kachkar, as the Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman ofInyx,
both Exaeris, Inc.
Inc., a non-Debtor entity that allegedly was the parent corporation of
and Inyx USA. Id. irir 5, 12 n. 4.
Westernbank asserted that, as of
the Petition Date, Inyx USA was indebted
to it in an amount in excess of$140 milion, D-6 ir 9; CDT-l ir 17; CDT-2 ir 16; CDT-4
ir 3, secured by perfected, first priority liens on all of
the assets ofInyx USA. D-6 at 3;
CDT-l at 6-8; CDT-2 ir 14.
Inyx USA operated on the Petition Date, and through the Chapter 11
Trustee continues to operate postpetition, a pharmaceutical plant in Manati, Puerto Rico,
6
32268-001 \DOCS_ DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 13 of 40
producing pharaceutical products. D-l ir 7; D-6 ir 7; CDT-2 ir 5. Cash flow from Inyx
USA's operations was inadequate to fud its postpetition expenses. D-l ir 9.
B. The Interim Kachkar DIP Order
On July 3,2007, the Debtors, Exaeris, Inc. and Inyx USA, as debtors in
possession, moved the Banptcy Court for authority pursuant to section 364 of the
Bankptcy Code to obtain credit from Kachkar in an amount up to $2 million. D-l ir 12.
On July 11, 2007, the Bankptcy Court entered the interim Kachkar DIP
Order. The interim Kachkar DIP Order authorized Exaeris, Inc. and Inyx USA, as
debtors in possession, to borrow up to $2.1 milion, to be advanced to the Debtors by
Kachkar in his discretion. D-2 ir 3.
The interim Kachkar DIP Order provided at paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 that:
5. As a condition for the Debtors' use of the DIP
Financing, the Debtors are authorized to grant and by this
Interim Order shall be deemed to have granted to Jack Kachkar liens upon all unencumbered property of the Debtors' estates not subject to prior valid, perfected first priority security
interests of any party, including those of Westernban Puerto
Rico.
6. In addition, the Debtor (sic) is authorized to and
hereby does grant to Jack Kachkar a superpriority,
administrative claim pursuant to Section 364(c)(I) of the
Bankptcy Code.
7. As a fuher condition for the Debtors' use of the
DIP Financing, the Debtors are authorized to grant and by this Interim Order shall be deemed to have granted to Jack Kachkar liens upon all post-Petition Date property of the Debtors, not
including any causes of action arsing under chapter 5 of the
Bankptcy Code or proceeds thereof.
7
32268-001 \DOCS_ DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 14 of 40
Id. irir 5_7.7 No provision of
the interim Kachkar DIP Order provided for the priming of
Westernbank's asserted prepetition liens and claim by the liens or claim granted by the
interim Kachkar DIP Order. Id. None of
the liens granted to Kachkar by the Kachkar
DIP Order were granted priority over the liens of any other party, whether existing at the
time of entry of
the interim Kachkar DIP Order or subsequently arsing. Id.
The Banptcy Cour declined to find that the Kachkar financing was
extended in good faith. The finding of good faith proposed by Kachkar and the
borrowers in paragraph E of
the proposed interim Kachkar DIP Order was excised by the
Banptcy Court. D-2 irE (excised). As a consequence, the Kachkar financing
extended pursuant to the interim Kackar DIP Order is not entitled to any of
the
protections of section 364 ( e) of the Bankptcy Code that are afforded to a postpetition
lender that extends credit in good faith pursuant to sections 364 of
the Banptcy Code.
11 U.S.c. § 364(e).
c. Appointment of
the Trustee and the Westernbank Financinl!
Shortly after entr ofthe interim Kachkar DIP Order, on July 13, 2007, the
Bankptcy Cour granted the Debtors' motion for entr of an order pursuant to Rule
1015 of the Federal Rules of
Banptcy Procedure directing that the chapter 11 cases of
7 As noted, the Kachkar DIP Order is an interim order, not a final order, and the
provisions therefore remain subject to revision by the Banptcy Cour prior to entry of
a final order on the Kachkar financing.
8
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 15 of 40
Exaeris, Inc. and Inyx USA be consolidated for joint administration puroses only.
D-5 ir A.
On August 13, 2007, following a motion for the appointment of a trstee
made by the Offce of
the United States Trustee and Westernbank, Inyx USA consented
to the appointment ofa chapter 11 trustee. D-5 ir B; D-ll ir B; D-16 ir B. On August 7,
2007, at the recommendation of the Offce of the United States Trustee, the Banptcy
Court appointed Stephen S. Gray as the Chapter 11 Trustee for Inyx USA. Id.
Upon his appointment, the Chapter 11 Trustee found that Inyx USA did
not have sufficient fuds to meet its payroll and other operating costs and expenses. D-3
at 3. The Chapter 11 Trustee submitted to the Banptcy Court that: Without the necessary funds to purchase materials and meet its
payroll and other expenses, the Debtor's manufacturng
operations wil rapidly grnd to a halt. Milions of dollars in
inventory likely will be lost or decrease in value, the goodwill that the Debtor enjoys with its customers and vendors wil be severely damaged, key contracts with those customers and
vendors wil be cancelled or terminated, and the Debtor's
employees wil
lose their jobs. A termination of the Debtor's
operations - or even an interrption in production - wil result
in irreparable harm to the Debtor's estate and the Debtor's
stakeholders.
D-6 ir 15. The Trustee immediately commenced negotiations with Westernban for
postpetition financing. D-3 at 3.
On August 16, 2007, the Banptcy Cour entered an emergency order
(the "Emergency Order") pursuant to sections 362, 363 and 364 of
the Bankptcy Code
authorizing the Trustee to obtain postpetition financing from Westernbank and granting
9
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 16 of 40
other relief (D-5), and Westernban extended credit to the Trustee in an amount up to
$428,000 (the "Emergency Loan") pursuant to the Emergency Order, to be used for the
purposes of
payroll and direct operating expenses ofInyx USA's plant in Manati, Puerto
Rico and for other administrative expenses. Id. ir 2(a). The repayment ofthe Emergency
Loan was collaterally secured by first priority perfected liens and securty interests on all
property ofthe Inyx USA estate pursuant to sections 364(c)(2), 364(c)(3) and 364(d) of
the Bankptcy Code, expressly made subject to Kachkar's liens pursuant to paragraph
2( d) of the Emergency Order, as well as other protections as specified in the Emergency
Order. Id. irir 2(c)-(e).
The Emergency Order was entered by the Bankptcy Cour following
hearngs held before it on August 15 and 16,2007. D-3; D-4. At the August 16,2007
hearng, Kachkar objected to the proposed Emergency Order,8 claiming that the Order
would somehow circumscribe the liens granted pursuant to the interim Kachkar DIP
Order. D-4 at 10-12. Westernbank agreed to defer the issue of
the priming ofKachkar's
liens to a later date, (i) it was understood at the hearng that the liens granted to Kachkar
under the interim Kachkar DIP Order were subordinate to the prepetition liens held by
Westernbank, and (ii) Westernban's position at the hearing was that its prepetition liens
extended to any property acquired postpetition by Inyx USA with proceeds of
Westernbank's collateral security. See, 11 U.S.C. § 552. Westernbank fuher asserted
8 The official committee of
unsecured creditors appointed in the jointly administered
the proposed
chapter 11 cases (the "Committee") also objected to certain aspects of
Emergency Loan. D-3 at 11-13; D-7. The Committee is not a pary to this appeaL.
10
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 17 of 40
that every asset ofInyx USA was subject to Westernban's prepetition liens. Id. at 1316; D-ll ir 2(c).
The Emergency Order was submitted to the Bankptcy Cour containing
the provision making Westernban's postpetition Financing Liens subject and
subordinate to Kachkar's postpetition liens as set forth in paragraph 2( d) of the
Emergency Order. At the conclusion of
the August 16,2007 hearng, the Banptcy
Court stated that it was "satisfied with the language as proposed in the Emergency Order"
and granted the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion. Id. at 17. Westernban consented to a
reservation ofKachkar's right "to prove (at a later time) the benefit that (Kachkar)
conferred upon the Inyx USA estate with (his) DIP." Id. at 18. The Emergency Order
approving the Westernbank financing was signed by the Bankptcy Cour on August 16,
2007, and provided, inter alia, that:
(Westernban's postpetition liens) shall be subject and subordinate to the liens granted under the Kachkar DIP (as defined below) on (1) unencumbered property of the Debtor's estate as of July 11,2007, if any, or (2) property acquired after the Petition Date and prior to the date hereof by USA or the Trustee from fuds used for USA's direct benefit provided under the postpetition financing extended
to the Debtor pursuant to the Banptcy Cour's
Emergency Order dated July 11, 2007 (the "Kachkar DIP"), if any.
D-5 ir 2( d).
Thereafter, by motion dated August 21, 2007 (the "Trustee's Motion"), the
Chapter 11 Trustee moved for interim and final orders authorizing him to obtain
financing from Westernban and grant Westernbank liens, priorities and other protections
11
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 18 of 40
for loans to be made to the Chapter 11 Trustee for the period through November 30,
2007. D-6.
The Chapter 11 Trustee, at paragraph 27.b of
the Trustee's Motion, in an
abundance of caution in accordance with Del.Ban.L.R. 4001-2(a)(i), and prior to
consideration by the Bankptcy Court ofthe Trustee's Motion, highlighted that: "The
replacement liens granted with respect to the Debtor's use of Western
ban's cash
collateral have the same priority as the Prepetition Liens and accordingly prime the liens
granted under the Kachkar DIP to the extent of any property of
the Debtor's estate that
was unencumbered on the Petition Date. Westernban asserts that there was no such
unencumbered property on the Petition Date." D-6 ir27.b.
The interim hearng on the Trustee's Motion was held by the Bankptcy
Court on August 23, and the final hearing was held on September 7,2007. D-I0; D-14.
Kachkar objected to the proposed financing. D-8; D-13. At the August 23 hearing, the
Chapter 11 Trustee and Westernban agreed to the entr of an interim order (the "Interim
Westernbank Financing Order"), authorizing the Trustee to borrow up to an aggregate
amount of$I,502,100, as requested in the Trustee's Motion. D-I0 at 26. Pursuant to the
Interim Westernbank Financing Order, the Chapter 11 Trustee was authorized to borrow
from Westernban in accordance with the interim budget for the period through
September 6,2007 attached to the Interim Westernbank Financing Order. D-ll ir 2(a).
At the August 23,2007 hearing, Kachkar by his counsel made the same
objections that Kachkar had made to entry ofthe Emergency Order, and also objected to
12
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 19 of 40
entr of
the proposed final order to the extent that it contained the waiver of certain
provisions of
the Banptcy Code as they related to Westernban. D-I0 at 6-17.
Kachkar did not contest or object to the Banptcy Court's finding that the Westernban
financing, if approved, was negotiated in good faith and that the financing to be disbursed
by Westernbank likewise would be in good faith. Kachkar's attorney stated: I don't begrdge a good faith finding, they can have it. I have no reason to believe that the negotiations that have taken place with the trustee are anything other than good faith. However, without the protections afforded to Dr. Kachkar, they wil be able to shield themselves behind that good faith finding, and Dr. Kachkar wil have limited relief on appeal.
Id. at 11 (emphasis added).
At the August 23 hearng, United States Bankptcy Judge Gross clarfied
his finding on the priming issue, stating:
Having read the propose(d) Interim Order, I am of
the view that whatever rights Dr. Kachkar has on the -- -- essentially on the priming issue, are preserved. That's been so represented and I also observe that the stage is set for a fight at a later date as to the allocation of assets, the postpetition assets, the proceeds, the cash proceeds from cash collateral and that those positions of the parties are not upset by the proposed order, and under the circumstances I am prepared to enter the interim order as presented by the
chapter 11 trstee here.
Id. at 26.
The Interin Westernban Financing Order was entered on August 23,
2007. D-ll. The Bankptcy Cour made the following finding, among others:
Cash Collateral and the borrowing provided in this Interim Order was negotiated in good faith and at arms' length between the Trustee and
F. Good Faith. The use of
Westernbank. That credit to be extended under this Interim
13
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 1366724
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 20 of 40
Order wil be extended in good faith, and for valid business which is that puroses and uses, the consequence of
Westernban is entitled to the protections and benefits of
section 364(e) ofthe Banptcy Code.
Id. ir F.
The Interim Westernbank Financing Order expressly provided that:
(Westernbank's postpetition liens) shall be subject and subordinate to the liens granted under the Kachkar DIP (as defined below) on (1) unencumbered property of the Debtor's estate as of July 11, 2007, if any, or (2) property acquired after the Petition Date and prior to the date hereof by USA or the Trustee from fuds used for USA's direct benefit provided under the postpetition financing extended
to the Debtor pursuant to the Banptcy Cour's Interim
Order dated July 11,2007 (the "Kachkar DIP"), if any.
Id. ir 2(c).
On September 7, 2007, the Bankptcy Court held the final hearing on the
Westernbank financing. D-14. At that hearing, Kachkar's counsel raised the same
objections to the proposed final order as she had argued in opposition to the Interim
Westernbank Financing Order. Id. at 3-5. After considering the objections, the
Bankptcy Court granted the Trustee's Motion, noting that the financing by
Westernbank was "critical and essential to the Trustee's administration of
the USA estate
the USA
and to avoid immediate and irreparable harm to the Trustee's administration of
estate." D-16 at 3-4. As agreed at the prior hearing, Westernban did not require the
priming of any liens that might have been granted to Kachkar pursuant to the interim
Kachkar DIP Order. D-14 at 20-24. Any issues regarding the priority of
the prepetiton
Kachkar and Westernbank,
14
liens of
Western
ban and the postpetition liens of
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 21 of 40
respectively, with respect to any property ofInyx USA's estate, were deferred to a later
date. Id. at 22.
The Banptcy Cour entered the Final Westernban Financing Order on
September 7,2007 following the final hearing on the Trustee's Motion, authorizing the
Chapter 11 Trustee to borrow from Westernban an aggregate amount of
up to
$3,373,100, inclusive of
the fuds advanced under the Emergency Order and the Interim
Westernbank Financing Order, and pursuant to the budget attached to the Final
Westernbank Financing Order (the "Budget"). D-16. The Final Westernbank Financing
Order granted to Westernbank perfected liens, administrative expense status and other
protections, including those that were incorporated into the Interim Westernban
Financing Order. Id.
The Banptcy Cour's findings set forth in the Final Westernban
Financing Order included, inter alia:
G. Good Faith. The use of Cash Collateral and the borrowing provided in this Order was negotiated in good faith and at arms' length between the Trustee and
Westernban. That credit to be extended under this Order
will be extended in good faith, and for valid business which is that puroses and uses, the consequence of Westernbank is entitled to the protections and benefits of Section 364( e) of the Bankptcy Code.
Id. ir G.
The Final Westernbank Financing Order again specified that:
(Westernbank's postpetition liens) shall be subject and subordinate to the liens granted under the Kachkar DIP (as defined below) on (1) unencumbered property ofthe Debtor's estate as of July 11,2007, if any, or (2) property acquired after the Petition Date and prior to August 16,
15
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 22 of 40
2007 by USA or the Trustee from funds used for USA's direct benefit provided under the postpetition financing
extended to the Debtor pursuant to the Banptcy Court's
Order dated July 11, 2007 (the "Kachkar DIP"), if any.
Id. ir 2(c).
Kachkar did not seek or obtain a stay ofthe Final Westernban Financing
Order.
Westernban has fully advanced and extended the postpetition loan
authorized pursuant to the Final Westernban Financing Order, and the Trustee has
expended the proceeds of the advances in the operation ofthe business oflnyx USA
pursuant to the approved Budget and in payment ofpostpetition expenses ofInyx USA's
estate.
¡Remainder of page left intentionally blank)
16
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 23 of 40
ARGUMENT
I.
KACHKA'S APPEAL FROM THE FINAL
WESTERNBANK FINANCING ORDER IS MOOT
The Final Westernban Financing Order was entered notice and hearings,
and authorized the Chapter 11 Trustee to obtain credit and incur debt pursuant to the
terms and conditions specified in the order pursuant to section 364 ofthe Banptcy
Code. All objections to the Trustee's Motion, including Kachkar's, were overrled by
the Bankptcy Cour.
Section 364(e) of
the Bankptcy Code, as applied by the Third Circuit,
governs this appeaL. That section provides: The reversal or modification on appeal of an authorization under this section to obtain credit or incur debt, or of a grant under this section of a priority or a lien, does not affect the validity of any debt so incured, or any priority or lien so granted, to an entity that extended such credit in good faith, whether or not such entity knew of the pendency of the appeal, unless such authorization and the incurrng of such debt, or the granting of such priority or lien, were stayed pending appeaL.
11 U.S.c. § 364(e).
A. Westernbank Extended the Westernbank Financing in Good Faith to the Chapter 11 Trustee Pursuant to the Final Westernbank Financinl! Order
It is uncontested that the Westernban financing was negotiated by
Westernbank and extended to the Chapter 11 Trustee in good faith under Bankptcy
Code section 364( e). The Bankptcy Court made a finding of good faith in paragraph G
17
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 24 of 40
ofthe Final Westernban Financing Order, and Kachkar's counsel acknowledged on the
record of
the August 23 hearng that the Westernban financing was made in good faith.
D-16 irG; D-l 0 at 11. The good faith finding is not challenged by Kachkar in his
Appellant's Brief.
B. Kachkar Did Not Seek or Obtain a Stay ofthe Final Westernbank Financinl! Order
Kachkar did not seek or obtain a stay of
the Final Westernbank Financing
Order. Westernbank proceeded to fully disburse the postpetition loan pursuant to the
Final Westernbank Financing Order, for Inyx USA's purposes pursuant to the Budget and
in payment ofpostpetition expenses ofInyx USA's estate. Absent a stay, the validity of
the fully disbursed debt incured by the Chapter 11 Trustee, and the liens, priorities and
other protections granted to Westernbank pursuant to the Final Westernban Financing
Order, may not be reversed or modified on appeal, and the Kachkar appeal is moot as
provided by section 364(e) of
the Bankptcy Code.
In Resolution Trust Corp. v. Swedeland Development Group, Inc. (In re
Swedeland Development Group, Inc.), 16 F.3d 552 (3d Cir. 1994), the Third Circuit
Cour of Appeals unequivocally held that an appeal from a bankptcy court order
authorizing superpriority postpetition financing that was fully disbursed prior to an
appeal and expended for working capital by the borrower was moot. Id. at 562-63. The
Third Circuit explained that under "these circumstances, the bankptcy cour could not
on remand enjoin Swedeland from using the proceeds ofthe . . . loan nor could it order
18
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 25 of 40
Swedeland to return the proceeds, as they were gone." /d. at 563. The Third Circuit also
determined that other protections extended to the lender, such as the requirement and
existence of an interest reserve which was deposited by the debtor for the benefit of
the
postpetition lender, likewise were protected by section 364( e). Id. The Third Circuit
fuher noted that though the interest reserve was property of
the debtor, it was
established for the benefit of
the postpetition lender, and therefore "voiding the reserve
would impact the security for which (the postpetition lender) bargained and thus would
be inconsistent with the protection afforded it by section 364(e)." Id. The Court found
that even if effective relief could be obtained by voiding the reserve, "in view of section
364(e) it cannot be done." Id.
Kachkar's appeal similarly cannot be undone. Pursuant to the Final
Westernban Financing Order, the Westernban financing has been fully disbursed and
used for the puroses specified in the Final Westernban Financing Order. Kachkar
faI1ed to seek or obtain a stay of the Final Westernban Financing Order in either the
Bankptcy Court or this Cour, with full knowledge of the effect of section 364( e), as
acknowledged by his attorney. D-I0 at 11. Kachkar must now be held to the
consequences of
his decision. The circumstances presented by the Westernbank
financing are identical to those that were presented in respect of the financing order in
Swedeland. As determined by the Third Circuit in Swedeland, Kachkar's appeal is moot
and the terms of the Westernban financing cannot be reversed or modified on appeal
absent a stay.
19
32268-001 \DOCS _DE: 1366724
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 26 of 40
The purose of section 364( e) of the Banptcy Code is to induce a
postpetition financing made by a lender in good faith to a trstee or trstee in a
bankptcy proceeding. The statute assures a postpetition lender that a loan extended
pursuant to section 364( e) wil be enforced on the terms of the order entered by the
banptcy court. Accordingly, unless a stay of
the financing order is obtained pending
appeal, or the bankptcy court did not find that the lender had acted in bad faith, an
appellate court may not upset the validity ofthe debt incured or the protections granted
to the postpetition lender. See 11 U.S.c. § 364(e); see also Burchinal v. Cent. Wash.
Bank (In re Adams Apple, Inc.), 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). A good faith
lender that "extends credit in reliance on a financing order is entitled to the benefit ofthat
order, even if it turns out to be legally or factually erroneous." Kham & Nate's Shoes No.
2, Inc. v. First Bank of
Whitng, 908 F.2d 1351, 1355 (7th Cir. 1990).
If
Kachkar wished to preserve his right of appeal, it was incumbent upon
him to seek a stay pending appeaL. As stated by the Seventh Circuit in In re EDC
Holding Co., 676 F.2d 945 (7th Cir. 1982), section 364(e):
20
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 27 of 40
seek(s) to overcome people's natual reluctance to deal
with a bankpt firm whether as purchaser or lender by
assurng them that so long as they are relying in good faith on a bankptcy judge's approval of the transaction they need not worry about their priority merely because some
creditor is objecting to the transaction and is trng to get
the district cour or the court of appeals to reverse the banptcy judge. The proper recourse for the objecting creditor is to get the transaction stayed pending appeal.
Id. at 947 (emphasis added). See also, Weinstein, Eisen & Weiss, LLP v. Gil (In re
Cooper Commons, LLC), 430 F.3d 1215, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding not only that
appeal from postpetition financing was moot because of section 364, but also that "any
provisions of
the financing agreement that (lender) might have bargained for or that
helped to motivate its extension of credit are protected by § 364( e)"), cert. denied, 546
u.s. 1174 (2006); Boulloun Aircraft Holding Co. v. Smith Mgmt. (In re W. Pac. Airlines,
Inc.), 181 F.3d 1191, 1196 (lOth Cir. 1999) (holding that where DIP fuds were fully
disbursed in reliance on postpetition financing agreement, lender was entitled to full section 364(e) protection and appeal of order granting debtor's interest in lease of aircraft
as collateral to postpetition lender was moot); Unsecured Creditors Comm. v. First Nat 'i
Bank & Trust Co. (In re Ellngsen MacLean Oil Co.), 834 F.2d 599,604 (6th Cir. 1987)
(holding that waiver in financing order of debtors' ability to challenge bans' prepetition
securty interest was protected by section 364( e) and that appeal of order was moot in
absence of stay pending appeal); White Rose Food v. Gen. Trading Co. (In re Clinton St.
Food Corp.), 170 B.R. 216, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding that section 364(e) prohibits
21
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 28 of 40
not only outright invalidation of lien or priority where challenging pary failed to seek a
stay, but also modification of other terms ofpostpetition lender's bargained-for
consideration); In re Fla. W. Gateway, Inc., 147 B.R. 817, 819 (Bank. S.D. Fla. 1992)
(applying protections of section 364( e) and denying motion for reconsideration of
postpetition financing order where party seeking relief faI1ed to obtain stay pending
appeaL.
Kachkar suggests that "(m)any issues could be resolved, and without har
to the Trustee or the estate," if
the Final Westernban Financing Order "was revised" at
this time. Appellant's Brief, p. 45. But Kachkar makes no specific suggestion regarding
how this can be done short of asking this Cour to instrct the Bankptcy Cour to
"resolve the conflct of
the two financing orders... to preserve the lead position afforded
by the Kachkar DIP Order." Id. As set forth below, Kachkar's liens have no "lead
position" to preserve beyond that provided by the provisions of paragraphs 2( d) and 4 of
the Final Westernbank Financing Order. But as in Swedeland, even were it otherwise,
there is no way that giving Kachkar what he now requests "can be done on any
basis. . . without either infrnging" W esternban' s "protections under section 364( e) or
exceeding the cour's powers to grant relief following the reversal" of
the Bankptcy
Cour's section 364 Final Westernban Financing Order. Resolution Trust Corp. v.
Swedeland Development Group, Inc. (In re Swedeland Development Group, Inc.), 16
F.3d at 563. Accordingly, as in Swedeland, Kachkar's appeal is moot.
22
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 29 of 40
Kachkar failed to seek or obtain a stay of the Final Westernban Financing
Order, which the Banptcy Cour found, and Kachkar's counsel acknowledged, was
made in good faith. Pursuant to Bankptcy Code section 364( e), Kachkar's appeal is
moot and the relief sought should be denied.
II. THE FINAL WESTERNBANK FINANCING ORDER DOES NOT IMPERMISSIBLY PROVIDE FOR THE PRIMING OF
THE LIENS GRATED TO KACHKA BY THE INTERIM KACHKA DIP ORDER NOR AR THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S FINDINGS CLEARY
ERRONEOUS, ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN ERROR, OR ITS DECISION AN ABUSE OR DISCRETION
A. The Liens Granted to Westernbank Do Not Impermissibly Prime Any Lien
of Kachkar Entitled to Priority
The liens granted to Westernban by the Final Westernban Financing
Order do not impermissibly prime the liens granted by the interim Kachkar DIP Order. The Final Westernbank Financing Order expressly provided that:
(Westernban's postpetition liens) shall be subject and subordinate to the liens granted under the Kachkar DIP (as defined below) on (1) unencumbered property ofthe Debtor's estate as of July 11,2007, if any, or (2) property acquired after the Petition Date and prior to the date hereof by USA or the Trustee from funds used for USA's direct benefit provided under the postpetition financing extended
to the Debtor pursuant to the Banptcy Cour's Interim
Order dated July 11, 2007 (the "Kachkar DIP"), if any.
Id. ir 2(c).
It is clear from clause (1) above that Westernban's liens in
unencumbered property ofInyx USA's estate as of July 11, 2007, if any, are subject and
subordinate to the liens granted to Kachkar by the interim Kachkar DIP Order entered on
23
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 30 of 40
the following day, July 12, 2007. It is equally obvious, pursuant to clause (2) above, that
Westernban's liens in estate property acquired after the Petition Date from the proceeds
of the Kachkar financing, which were fully advanced to Iny USA prior to entr of the
Interim Westernban Financing Order, are subject and subordinate to the liens granted by
the interim Kachkar DIP Order.
But what of liens in estate property acquired postpetition from the
proceeds of Western
ban's prepetition collateral? It is undisputed that the liens granted
to Kachkar by the interim Kachkar DIP Order did not prime the prepetition liens of
Westernbank. Neither paragraph 5 nor paragraph 7 nor any other provision of
the interim
the
Kachkar DIP Order grants any priming liens to Kachkar, nor does any provision of
interim Kachkar DIP Order purport to deprive the Westernbank of any of its existing
liens pursuant to the equities of the case doctrine of
Bankptcy Code section 552(b)(2)
or otherwise. Pursuant to Bankptcy Code section 552(b)(1), a prepetition lender's liens
that extend to a debtor's prepetition property and to "proceeds, products, offspring, or
profits of such property," also extend to postpetition proceeds, products, offspring, or
profits of such property. 11 U.S.C. § 552(b )(1).
The provision of
the Final Westernbank Financing Order expressly
subjecting and subordinating Westernbank's liens to Kachkar's liens to the extent of
collateral acquired with the proceeds of the Kachkar financing makes clear that any
prepetition liens of Westernban in prepetition collateral and any "proceeds, products,
offspring, or profits of such property" are not subordinate to Kachkar's liens granted by
24
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 31 of 40
the interim Kachkar DIP Order. The Banptcy Cour's characterization and
preservation of
the lenders' respective lien positions in the Final Westernbank Financing
Order should be upheld.
B. The Bankruptcy Court's Interpretation of its Interim Kachkar DIP Order is
Not Clearly Erroneous with respect to the Extent and Priority of the Liens
granted to Kachkar by the Interim Kachkar DIP Order, on which
Interpretation Depends the Question of Whether Those Liens were Primed
bv the Final Westernbank Financinl! Order
Furher, the Kachkar's liens granted to him by the interim Kachkar DIP
Order are not expressly given priority over any lien of Westernban or any other liens
whatsoever, whether those other liens arose prior to or after entry of the interim Kachkar
DIP Order. Paragraphs 5 and 7 merely grant to Kachkar "liens" upon the property
described, with no description whatsoever of
the priority afforded to Kachkar's liens,
other than the express subordination ofKachkar's liens to preexisting liens in paragraph 5
ofthe interim Kachkar DIP Order. Had Kachkar required liens having priority over
existing or subsequent financings extended to Inyx USA, he could have insisted upon
such priority as a condition to his extending the Kachkar financing. He did not.9
the interim Kachkar DIP Order in paragraphs 5 and 7 had granted to Kachkar first priority lien status or priority over subsequently granted liens, which it did not, Kachkar obtained only interim approval ofthe Kachkar financing pursuant to the interim Kachkar DIP Order. Accordingly, all of the terms and provisions including the priority of any liens granted by the interim Kachkar Financing Order remained subject to change
until entry of the final order on the Kachkar financing. Federal Rule of
9 Even if
Bankptcy
Procedure 4001(c)(I)(B), expressly recognzing this doctrne in the amendments that became effective on December 1,2007, now requires an interim financing order to identify any lien provision "that is proposed to remain in effect if interim approval is is denied." Though, as noted, this change in the Rule requiring granted, but final relief such a statement in an interim financing order became effective after entr of the interim
25
32268-00 1 \DOCS_DE: 1366724
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 32 of 40
There simply is no priming by Westernban pursuant to the Final
Westernban Financing Order. That order expressly provides that the liens granted to
Westernbank are subordinate to Kachkar's postpetition liens in unencumbered property
and property acquired from the proceeds of
the Kachkar financing, and does nothing to
alter the continuation of any prepetition liens of Westernban in postpetition proceeds
pursuant to Banptcy Code section 552(b)(I). Paragraph 5 of
the interim Kackhar DIP
Order provided Kachkar with "liens upon all unencumbered property ofthe Debtors'
estates not subject to prior valid, perfected first priority security interests of any party,
including those of Western
bank Puerto Rico." D-2, ir 5 (emphasis added). The right of
Kachkar to prove the existence of such unencumbered property has been preserved and is
not affected by the Final Westernban Financing Order.
Kachkar repeatedly asserts that the interim and final orders entered on the
Westerban financing somehow altered the priority ofthe liens granted to Kachkar. In
support Kachkar argues that the language in the Final Westernbank Financing Order
somehow "redefined" Kachkar's collateral because it is other than the precise language
that he requested be utI1ized. Even assuming that the interim Kachkar Financing Order gave Kachkar priming liens over subsequently granted liens (which, as set forth above, it
did not), the language of the Final Westernbank Financing Order expressly preserves any
priority of
Kachkar's liens granted by the interim Kachkar DIP Order in unencumbered
Kachkar Financing Order, the doctrine behind such new requirement is clearly that an interim financing order is not final, and remains subject to change, untI1 it is finaL.
26
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 33 of 40
property, and equally expressly preserves the priority of any prepetition liens of
Westernban in prepetition collateral and the proceeds thereof
under Banptcy Code
section 552(b). D-16, ir 2(c). Kachkar similarly asserts that that language ofthe Final
Westernbank Financing Order "impermissibly shift
( s) the burden to Dr. Kachkar to prove
that post-petition property was acquired with the proceeds of
the Kachkar DIP
proof
Financing." Appellant's Brief, p. 23. But such requirement of
arses from
Bankptcy Code section 552(b) itself, which extends any prepetition liens of
Westernban to the proceeds of its collateral, not from any order of
the Bankptcy
Court.
Indeed, Westernbank, through its counsel, expressly conceded at the
August 23 hearng that Westernbank's liens granted by the Interim Westenbank
Financing Order did not affect any priority given to Kachkar's liens under the interim
Kachkar DIP Order:
MR. MILLER: The lien issue has to be decided on another day, Your Honor, and that's what the emergency order and the proposed order proposes to do. It doesn't prime Kachkar in any way, shape, or form.
D-I0 at 19.
The subordination provision of the last clause of paragraph 2(c) of
the
Interim Westernbank Financing Order referred to by W esternban' s counsel in the
colloquy quoted above is identical to the subordination provision of the last clause of the
same paragraph of
the Final Westernbank Financing Order. D-ll ir2(c); D-16 ir2(c).
27
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 34 of 40
In short, any Westernban prepetition lien which already had priority over
Kachkar's postpetition liens, maintained the priority afforded them by Banptcy Code
section 552(b) and the interim Kachkar DIP Order, and the financing liens granted to
Westernban by paragraph 2( c) of the Final Westernbank Financing Order were made
expressly subject and subordinate to, and did not prime, the liens granted under the
interim Kachkar DIP Order. D-ll ir2(c); D-16 ir2(c).
It is equally apparent that the replacement liens granted to Westernban
pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Final Westernban Financing Order do not prime
Kachkar's postpetition liens. D-16 ir4. The proceeds of any of W esternban' s
prepetition collateral constitute cash collateral under Banptcy Code section 363(a).
Accordingly, (i) any proceeds of Western
bank's collateral constituted its cash collateral
Western
on the Petition Date and (ii) and any of
bank's prepetition collateral that was
subsequently converted into cash also was cash collateral, subject to Westernban's liens.
Westernbank is entitled to adequate protection under Bankptcy Code section 363(e) to
the extent of any diminution in the value of Western
ban's prepetition collateraL. The
replacement liens granted to Westernbank as adequate protection by the Final
Westernban Financing Order pursuant to Bankptcy Code section 361(2) expressly are
given "the same priority as the Financing Liens," i.e., they are subject to the identical
provision of paragraph 2( c) of that order that makes them subject and subordinate to
Kachkar's liens as set forth in paragraph 2(c) of
the Final Westernban Financing Order.
D-16 irir2( c) and 4.
28
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 35 of 40
The Banptcy Cour's characterization and preservation of
the lenders'
respective lien positions in the Final Westernban Financing Order was correct, and
certainly was not clearly erroneous, and should be upheld.
C. The Chapter 11 Trustee's Waivers of the Doctrine of
Marshaling, the
Equities of the Case Doctrine, and Surcharge Rights, and the Payment of
Proceeds Provision of the Final Westernbank Financing Order, Were Justifed and Appropriate and Authorization of these Provisions by the
Bankruptcy Court as a Necessary Condition of
the Westernbank Financing
Was Not Clearly Erroneous
With respect to the other protections granted to Westernban, by the
waivers of marshallng, the equities ofthe case, and the right to assert surcharge, the
record reflects that the Chapter 11 Trustee, after intense negotiations with Westernban,
made these concessions to Westernbank upon the exercise of
his business judgment in
order to obtain the Westernbank financing. D-14 at 6.
Such waivers are typical in postpetition financings. See, e.g., In re
Sharper Image Corp., Ch. 11 Case No. 08-10322 (KG) (Ban. D. DeL. Mar. 7, 2008)
(D.1. 182, pp. 28, 37) (waiving doctrne of
marshaling, "equities ofthe case" exception to
section 552(b) and section 506(c)); In re Buffets Holdings Inc., Ch. 11 Case No. 08-
10141 (MFW) (Bank. D. DeL. Feb. 22, 2008) (D.1. 350, pp. 20, 27) (waiving doctrine of
marshaling and section 506(c)); In re Domain, Inc., Ch. 11 Case No. 08-10132 (PJW)
(Bank. D. DeL. Feb 14,2008) (D.1. 218, pp. 29, 37-38) (waiving doctrne of
marshaling,
"equities ofthe case" exception to section 552(b) and section 506(c)); In re Am. Home
Mortgage Holdings, Inc., Ch. 11 Case No. 07-11047 (CSS) (Ban. D. DeL. Nov. 28,
29
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 1366724
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 36 of 40
2007) (D.1. 2205, p. 13) (waiving doctrne of
marshaling and section 506(c)); In re
HomeBanc Mortgage Corp., Ch. 11 Case No. 07-11079 (KJC) (Ban. D. DeL. Sept. 13,
2007) (D.1. 268, p. 17) (waiving doctrne of
marshaling and section 506(c) except as
provided in care-out); In re Tweeter Home Entm 't Group, Ch. 11 Case No. 07-10787
(PJW) (Ban. D. DeL. June 29, 2007) (D.1. 253, pp. 32-33,44) (waiving doctrne of
marshaling, "equities of
the case" exception to section 552(b) and section 506(c)); In re
New Century TRS Holdings, Ch. 11 Case No. 07-10416 (KJC) (Ban. D. DeL. May 7,
2007) (D.1. 565, p. 15) (waiving doctrne of
marshaling and section 506(c)); In re
Foamex Intl, Inc., Ch. 11 Case No. 05-12685 (PJW) (Ban. D. DeL. Oct. 17,2005) (D.1.
197, pp. 17,23) (waiving doctrne of
marshaling and section 506(c)). Moreover, any
section 506(c) claims are property ofthe Trustee, not any other party, and Kachkar's
standing to raise an objection to the section 506(c) waiver is doubtfuL. See, Hartford
Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, NA., 530 U.S. 1 (2000) and
Debbie
Reynolds Management Co. v. Calstar Corp. (In re Debbie Reynolds Hotel & Casino,
Inc.), 255 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2001).
The Chapter 11 Trustee strenously negotiated the Final Westernban
Financing Order, and that the provisions of
that order were necessary to secure the
financing from Westernban necessary for Inyx USA's continued operations. "(W)e
argued very forcefully with the lender, and we did negotiate a number of
these provisions
to improve upon them from our perspective. . .. (W)e have negotiated this order, and
30
32268-001 \DOCS_DE: 136672.4
Case 1:07-cv-00621-GMS
Document 14
Filed 04/14/2008
Page 37 of 40
it's where we are. . . ." D-14 at 6-7. The Banptcy Cour's findings based on such
record were not clearly erroneous.
The Banptcy Code, the Federal Rules of
Banptcy Procedure and the
Delaware Banptcy Local Rules (the "Local Rules") do not prohibit such waivers,
which are customarily given in negotiations for postpetition financing.
Indeed, the Chapter 11 Trustee did not agree to many of
the more onerous
provisions typically demanded by postpetition lenders which the Local Rules require to
be highlighted and for which justification is required, such as cross-collateralization
(other than by replacement liens or other adequate protection) (Local Rule 4001-
2(a)(I)(A)), provisions or findings that limit the estate from challenging the lender's
prepetition claim or liens Local Rule 4001-2(a)(I)(B)), liens in avoidance actions Local
Rule 4001-2(a)(I)(D)), or the "roll-up" ofthe prepetition debt by using the postpetition
loan to pay it Local Rule 4001-2(a)(1)(E)). The absence of all ofthese provisions from
the Final Westernban Financing Order further supports the Bankptcy Court's finding
that the terms of
the Westernban financing were justified.
No authority supports Kachkar's arguent that the waivers he complains
of
are prohibited. In re The Colad Group, Inc., 324 B.R. 208 (Bank. W.D.N.Y. 2005),
the only authority cited by Kachkar, is inapplicable. In that case the banptcy cour
declined to authorize a waiver of marshallng in an interim, emergency financing
submitted on minimal notice by the debtor at the ince