  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
Facts: Lyondell Chemical Co. and its affiliates ("Lyondell") moved to enforce the automatic stay and block New Jersey state court actions by (1) BASF Corporation, which had a $170 million prepetition judgment against Lyondell in NJ state court (the "NJ Action"); the NJ Action had been stayed when Lyondell posted a $200 million supersedeas bond (the "Supersedeas Bond"), which was bonded from three insurance companies as sureties (the "Sureties") and by (2) the NJ Appellate Division, before whom Lyondell's appeal of the NJ Action was pending when Lyondell filed for chapter 11. BASF, on the other hand, seeks relief from the automatic stay to continue Lyondell's appeal in NJ. The procedural posture of the NJ Action is relevant: Once Lyondell filed for chapter 11, the NJ Appellate Division filed a dismissal order (the "Dismissal Order") dismissing Lyondell's appeal without prejudice to renewal. After receiving an emergency motion to reinstate the appeal from BASF, the NJ Appellate Division entered a reinstatement order (the "Reinstatement Order"), temporarily reinstating Lyondell's appeal, ordered Lyondell to keep the Supersedeas Bond in effect, and enjoined the Sureties from returning the Supersedeas Bond's annual premium. The Supersedeas Bond is secured by assets of Lyondell; thus, its existence reduces the amount Lyondell has available to it in post-petition financing.
Issues: (1) "[W]hether the Appellate Division violated the automatic stay when it issued the Dismissal Order or the Reinstatement Order...[,]" (2) Whether the stay should be lifted to allow BASF to continue the appeal in the NJ Action, (3) Whether the stay should be lifted and the court should abstain from hearing the continuing viability of the Supersedeas Bond.
Rules: Section 362(a) imposes an automatic stay of all proceedings once a party declares bankruptcy. Although the text of the statute is unhelpful in figuring out the specific issues before the court in this case, Judge Gerber noted that the case law "is helpful in describing the general approach that courts should utilize in determining whether dismissals of pending litigation should be regarded as violative of section 362(a). '[T]he application or non-application of § 362(a) to the dismissal of an action pending against a debtor should be made consistent with the purpose of the statute.'" If a debtor wishes to stay its own appeal, it certainly has that right, however, in the meantime, the decision the debtor has appealed stands and must be respected in bankruptcy as an obligation that the debtor must satisfy. In determining whether to lift the stay to allow the debtor's appeal to move forward, the court analyzed the request pursuant to the so-called Sonnax factors, as is required in the Second Circuit.
Holding: (1) The actions of the Appellate Division did not violate the automatic stay. (2) The stay should not be lifted for the prosecution of Lyondell's appeal. (3) After abstaining from hearing the matter, the stay should be lifted in part for a determination from the NJ courts as to the viability of the Supersedeas Bond.
Reasoning: (1) Dismissal of Lyondell's appeal, as opposed to merely staying the appeal, did not violate § 362(a) when the order was entered as a means of trying to comply with the need to stay the appeal. The action "creates no burdens on the debtor greater than staying the appeal would, and gives the debtor the same breathing spell that the debtor would receive if the action were stayed." Likewise, the Reinstatement Order was not a violation of the automatic stay - it "did not place the appeal back on track for disposition, or subject Lyondell to the pressures of dealing with the appeal on the merits... [it] simply restored the parties back to the status quo as it existed before the Appellate Division's staff attorney acted." The Reinstatement Order "was simply a different functional equivalent of continuation of the stay." (2) Based on the case law, and the analysis of the Sonnax factors, the stay for purposes of prosecuting the appeal is denied. "Prosecution of the appeal at this time might 'still distract a debtor's attention from its primary goal of reorganizing.' But a delay of several months, or even more than that, under the facts presented here, will not prejudice BASF in any material way." (3) However, with regard to the viability of the Supersedeas Bond, the court believed that the "issues present classic matters for discretionary abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and that I should defer to the New Jersey courts to decide these issues."
