  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
Issues: Whether the district court erred in entering an order granting the government's motion to dismiss the chapter 11 case before the negative notice had run on the motion and without holding a hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Rules: Collectively, the relevant "provisions envision a hearing on a party's request to convert or dismiss a Chapter 11 proceeding, conducted on twenty days' notice to the parties; but neither the notice nor the hearing requirement is rigid. The court may, in the exercise of its discretion, shorten the notice period pursuant to Rule 9006(c). A hearing is of course not required when no one demands it." And, even if a party does demand a hearing, when the court has the relevant facts before it, it has the discretion to decide a motion to dismiss or convert without a hearing.
Holding: Affirmed.
Reasoning: The court assumed that Bartle had been deprived of adequate opportunity to respond to the government's motion to dismiss the case. But, the error could be harmless. Bankruptcy Rule 9005 incorporates F.R.C.P. 61 which instructs that courts should disregard errors that do not affect a party's substantive rights. Bartle's substantive rights could only have been affected if he had a response to the government's motion to dismiss that would have altered the district court's decision to dismiss the case. Here, Bartle had the opportunity to be heard at least when he filed his Rule 59 motion, but he failed to alert the court of any grounds upon which he would rely in arguing against the government's motion to dismiss. Therefore, because the court cannot say that "Bartle's substantial rights were affected by an erroneous deprivation of an opportunity to be heard on the government's motion to dismiss when he has not set forth what he would have brought to the court's attention in opposition to the government's motion to dismiss."
Facts: Simon Catro, an Australian liquidator, sought recognition as a foreign main proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code for the winding up of Betcorp Limited ("Betcorp"), an Australian company. (Another liquidator - Simon Alexander Wallace-Smith - was also helping liquidate the company.) An American company, 1st Technology LLC, which had sued Betcorp in the District Court for the Nevada District for patent infringement in February 2008, opposes recognition. Betcorp was formed and registered as an Australian company. It offered a number of online and telephone gaming activities which were conducted via a variety of subsidies and affiliates. Betcorp ceased operating when certain changes were made to the U.S. laws - the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was passed in October 2006 - regarding online gaming. In September 2007, Betcorp's members voted to liquidate the company through a 'voluntary winding up' under Australian law, which is still ongoing and which required the appointment of liquidators. Despite its many subsidiaries and affiliates, Australia remained Betcorp's administrative and executive nerve center- the majority of the company's shareholders resided in or were located in Australia, it was an Australian corporation, and Australian law governed its corporate activities. All Betcorp shareholder meetings were conducted in Australia and its corporate audits were conducted in Australia by the Australian arm of Ernst & Young and Grant Thornton. Additionally, Betcorp filed income taxes in Australia. But most of Betcorp's customers resided in the U.S. Once the company began its orderly liquidation, the liquidators sent out Notice Inviting Formal Proof of Debt or Claim, which is when they became aware of the 1st Technology lawsuit. 1st Technology, owned by Dr. Scott Lewis, "invented and patented a method and system for interactively transmitting multimedia information over a computer network," (the "001 Patent") which 1st Technology alleged was used illegally by Betcorp. In April 2008, 1st Technology submitted to the liquidators their proof of claim. The liquidators would prefer to deal with 1st Technology's claim in Australia, and, conversely, 1st Technology would rather deal with its lawsuit in Nevada. Thus, 1st Technology objects to
