In re: Kirwan Offices S.À.R.L.

18‐3371
In re: Kirwan Offices S.à.R.L.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND
IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR
AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A
PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
City of New York, on the 20th day of December, two thousand nineteen.
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK,
DENNY CHIN,
JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
Circuit Judges.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
IN RE: KIRWAN OFFICES S.à.R.L.,
Debtor.
STEPHEN P. LYNCH,
Appellant,
v. 18‐3371
MASCINI HOLDINGS LIMITED, LAPIDEM
LIMITED,
Creditors‐Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
FOR APPELLANT: STEPHEN P. LYNCH, pro se,
Moscow, Russia.
FOR CREDITORS‐APPELLEES: MARK A. MCDERMOTT (Jonathan
Frank, on the brief), Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, New York, NY.
FOR AMICUS CURIAE: Jean‐David Barnea, Jeannette A.
Vargas, Assistant United States
Attorneys, for Geoffrey S.
Berman, United States Attorney
for the Southern District of New
York, New York, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (McMahon, C.J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Stephen P. Lynch, proceeding pro se, appeals from an October
11, 2018 judgment of the district court affirming a March 21, 2017 order of the
bankruptcy court confirming a reorganization plan (the ʺPlanʺ) for debtor Kirwan
Offices S.à.r.L. (ʺKirwanʺ). Lynch is one of Kirwanʹs three shareholders. The other
two ‐‐ Lapidem Limited (ʺLapidemʺ) and Mascini Holdings Limited (ʺMasciniʺ)
(together, ʺAppelleesʺ) ‐‐ filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Kirwan and
proposed the Plan. Lynch opposes the Plan because it strips him of his rights under
the shareholder agreement (the ʺSHAʺ).
Lynch makes five arguments on appeal: (1) he did not receive adequate
notice of the Planʹs confirmation hearing; (2) the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to confirm part of the Plan; (3) certain provisions of the Plan illegally
prevent him from pursuing future claims against Appellees; (4) his post‐confirmation
motions should have been granted; and (5) Appellees acted in bad faith when they
brought the bankruptcy action in White Plains. We assume the partiesʹ familiarity with
the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
ʺA district courtʹs order in a bankruptcy case is subject to plenary review.ʺ
In re Cacioli, 463 F.3d 229, 234 (2d Cir. 2006). ʺWe review the bankruptcy courtʹs
findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.ʺ Id. ʺWe review de
novo rulings as to the bankruptcy courtʹs jurisdiction.ʺ In re Motors Liquidation Co., 829
F.3d 135, 152 (2d Cir. 2016).
I. Notice
Lynch argues that the confirmation order is void because he did not
receive adequate notice of the confirmation hearing in violation of the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Article 15 of the Hague Convention on Service
Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (ʺHague Service Conventionʺ), and
because the notice period was improperly abbreviated. We are not persuaded.
3
First, failure to serve notice in conformity with the bankruptcy courtʹs
rules did not establish a due process violation because Lynch received actual notice of
the filing and contents of the Plan, and he did not object to the notice of the
confirmation hearing.1 United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 272 (2010)
(holding failure to serve summons and complaint in conformity with the Bankruptcy
Rules did not render a confirmation order void where the objecting party received
actual notice and failed to object to inadequate service).
Second, Lynchʹs reliance on Article 15 of the Hague Service Convention is
misplaced, as that article applies to a ʺwrit of summons or an equivalent documentʺ and
has no bearing on the service of notice of a hearing on confirmation of a reorganization
plan. See Hague Service Convention Art. 15. The Supreme Court has noted that the
scope of the Hague Service Convention is likely limited to ʺservice of process,ʺ see Water
Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 137 S. Ct. 1504, 1510 n.2 (2017), which is defined as ʺa formal
delivery of documents that is legally sufficient to charge the defendant with notice of a
pending action.ʺ Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 700 (1988).
Here, Lynch was not a nonparty who needed ʺnotice of a pending action.ʺ Id.1 In contrast, Lynch did object to the email notice he received of the telephonic hearing.
Moreover, while he objected to the confirmation of the Plan on other grounds, he did not object to the
notice of the bankruptcy confirmation hearing.
4
Instead, he had already voluntarily appeared in the bankruptcy proceedings and
participated substantively, including, for example, by moving to dismiss the
bankruptcy case (on other grounds) and to compel arbitration. Thus, the Hague
Service Convention is not relevant here, and Espinosa controls.
Third, bankruptcy courts have authority to abbreviate the notice period
ʺfor cause.ʺ Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(c)(1). We decline to consider Lynchʹs argument
that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in doing so here because this argument
was available to Lynch in the bankruptcy court, but he did not raise it. See In re Johns‐
Manville Corp., 759 F.3d 206, 219 (2d Cir. 2014) (failure to raise an argument in
bankruptcy court constitutes waiver, even if the argument was subsequently raised in
the district court).
II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The Plan affects Lynchʹs rights under the SHA because it includes
provisions (the ʺExculpation Clausesʺ) releasing and enjoining claims against Appellees
related to the restructuring efforts and/or the Plan. Lynch contends the bankruptcy
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to approve the Exculpation Clauses. Lynchʹs
appeal and the Governmentʹs amicus brief raise several distinct jurisdictional questions
regarding the bankruptcy courtʹs authority to enter an order including the Exculpation
5
Clauses. We need not reach these issues, however, because they are barred in part by
the doctrine of res judicata and resolved in part by Lynchʹs implicit consent to the
bankruptcy courtʹs entry of a final order. We address these two issues in turn.
A. Res Judicata
Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, ʺ[a] final judgment
on the merits of an action precludes the parties . . . from relitigating issues that were or
could have been raised in that action.ʺ Federated Depʹt Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394,
398 (1981) (citations omitted). ʺA voluntary dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication
on the merits for purposes of res judicata.ʺ Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Celotex Corp.,
56 F.3d 343, 345 (2d Cir. 1995).
In Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137 (2009), a bankruptcy court
issued an order enjoining certain claims against the debtorʹs insurer and incorporated
that order into a confirmation order that this Court affirmed. Id. at 141–42. Years
later, the bankruptcy court interpreted its prior orders to enjoin third‐party claims that,
in this Courtʹs view, were outside the bankruptcy courtʹs jurisdiction. Id. at 142–46.
The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata barred that jurisdictional
inquiry: the bankruptcy courtʹs orders ʺbecame final on direct review (whether or not
proper exercises of bankruptcy court jurisdiction and power)ʺ and were ʺnot any the
6
less preclusive because the attack is on the Bankruptcy Courtʹs conformity with its
subject‐matter jurisdiction, for even subject‐matter jurisdiction may not be attacked
collaterally.ʺ Id. at 152 (internal alterations, quotation marks, and citations omitted).
Here, Lynchʹs jurisdictional claims are barred by res judicata. Lynch
appealed the bankruptcy courtʹs order, which set forth the following rulings: (1) it had
jurisdiction over the petition and Lynchʹs motion to dismiss or intervene, which raised,
inter alia, the issue that the petition and proceeding in the bankruptcy court would
violate Lynchʹs rights under the SHA; (2) it denied the motion in part; (3) it preserved
certain issues raised by Lynch for a future hearing; and (4) it asserted and retained
jurisdiction ʺto hear and to determine all matters arising from the interpretation and/or
implementation of this Order.ʺ See In re Kirwan Offices S.a.R.L., S.D.N.Y. 16‐22321
(RDD), doc. 43. Because the bankruptcy courtʹs confirmation order ‐‐ including with
respect to the Exculpation Clauses ‐‐ reflected an exercise of its previously affirmed
jurisdiction, we agree that the question of whether these issues fall within the courtʹs
core jurisdiction is barred by res judicata.
B. Consent
This does not end our inquiry, however, because the Supreme Court held
in Stern v. Marshall that, as a constitutional matter, a final order must be entered by an
7
Article III court in certain core proceedings. 564 U.S. 462, 499 (2011). This barrier to
the bankruptcy courtʹs entry of a final judgment may be overcome by the partiesʹ
express or implied consent. Wellness Intʹl Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1948
(2015). Policies in favor of ʺincreasing judicial efficiency and checking gamesmanshipʺ
underlie this rule. Id.We need not decide whether Stern would otherwise require entry of a
final order by the district court, because we find that Lynch implicitly consented to the
bankruptcy courtʹs jurisdiction. First, he presented at least some of his SHA claims to
the bankruptcy court when he moved to dismiss the bankruptcy petition and to compel
arbitration. Second, Lynch declined to participate in the confirmation hearing or
otherwise object to the proposed Plan prior to its entry, despite having notice of them
and their effect on his rights. Because Lynch voluntarily presented these claims to the
bankruptcy court, and because his objection to the courtʹs jurisdiction came only after it
entered the confirmation order, the policies of ʺincreasing judicial efficiency and
checking gamesmanshipʺ are implicated, id., and we conclude that his conduct
establishes implicit consent.
8
III. Exculpation Clauses
Lynch next argues that, even if the bankruptcy court had the authority to
enter an order containing the Exculpation Clauses, it was improper to do so because the
clauses were not ʺnecessaryʺ to the reorganization plan and ʺunusual circumstancesʺ
were not present, as required by our decision in In re: Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.,
416 F.3d 136, 142‐43 (2d Cir. 2005). Appellees argue that Lynch waived this issue by
failing to object at the time of confirmation. We agree that this issue was waived. See
In re Johns‐Manville Corp., 759 F.3d at 219. Lynch is incorrect that he was not provided
an opportunity for a hearing. As discussed above, Lynch had notice of the motion to
abbreviate the confirmation notice period and of the Plan, and he failed to object to
either. See supra Section I.
IV. Post‐Confirmation Motion
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lynchʹs post‐
confirmation motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), (e) and 60(b)(3), (4), (6), which are
incorporated in all relevant respects by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023 and 9024. Lynch sought
relief from the confirmation order on the grounds that (1) Appellees had
misrepresented the facts establishing venue, (2) the judgment was void because the
bankruptcy court had exceeded its jurisdiction, and (3) the Exculpation Clauses were
9
not justified under the facts of the case. In the alternative, he seeks reconsideration or
retrial on the confirmation order.
As to Lynchʹs Rule 60(b)(3) motion, asserting that Appellees engaged in
misconduct or fraud related to venue, Lynch has waived the issue because he provides
no explanation why the bankruptcy court erred in finding that Kirwan had an asset
establishing venue. See Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (ʺIssues
not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be
addressed on appeal.ʺ). As to Lynchʹs Rule 60(b)(4) motion, asserting that the
bankruptcy courtʹs order was void for lack of jurisdiction, we disagree for the reasons
discussed above. See supra Section II. As to Lynchʹs Rule 60(b)(6) motion, he argued
that the bankruptcy court wrongly decided that the Exculpation Clauses were
warranted under the facts of this case. But this Court has warned that ʺa Rule 60
motion may not be used as a substitute for appeal and that a claim based on legal error
alone is inadequate.ʺ United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien, 588 F.3d 158, 176 (2d Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Lynch also did not meet the ʺstrictʺ standard for a
Rule 59 motion, because he did not ʺpoint to controlling decisions or data that the court
overlooked.ʺ Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir.
2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). To the extent he reiterated prior objections to
10
the bankruptcy courtʹs jurisdiction, this was not a proper basis for a Rule 59 motion.
See id. (a reconsideration motion ʺis not a vehicle for . . . presenting the case under new
theories . . . or otherwise taking a second bite at the appleʺ (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
V. Bad Faith
Finally, we decline to consider Lynchʹs new claim on appeal that
Appellees acted in bad faith by filing their petition in White Plains. See In re Johns‐
Manville Corp., 759 F.3d at 219. Lynch concedes that he did not previously raise this
claim ‐‐ that Appellees participated in their counselʹs ʺrepeated scheme . . . to
improperly funnel Russian (and perhaps other) clients to the Westchester single‐judgeʺ
bankruptcy court ‐‐ but asserts that he only belatedly learned of this practice and that
the judge was not randomly assigned. Appellantʹs Reply Br. at 3, 7. But the number
of judges in the White Plains bankruptcy court is public information that was available
to him throughout the proceedings. And, even accepting Lynchʹs premise that
Appellees anticipated a strategic advantage by filing in White Plains, this does not
establish that Appellees acted in bad faith by selecting that venue. Cf. Iragorri v. United
Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 71–72 (2d Cir. 2001) (in the context of a motion to dismiss for
forum non conveniens, courts balance the extent to which the choice of forum was
11
motivated by proper considerations, such as connections to the action and convenience
of the parties, against the extent to which it appears that the choice of forum was
ʺmotivated by forum‐shopping reasonsʺ).2
***
We have considered all of Lynchʹs remaining arguments and find them to
be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
2 We note that Lynch does not present any reasons why Washington, D.C. would be a more
appropriate venue than New York if Kirwan had assets in both locations.
12