Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06361/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06361-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arthur Lipper Corporation
Appellee
Texas International Company
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals 

'femh Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

In re: TEXAS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, 

Debtor, 

ARTHUR LIPPER CORPORATION, 

Appellee, 

v. 

TEXAS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, 

Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

UG r. 1991 

&OBERT L. I-IOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6361 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-906-W) 

( W. D. Okla. ) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6361 Document: 010110130241 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 1 
-... .... -

Debtor appeals from an order of the district court reversing 

an order of the bankruptcy court which granted a motion to modify 

a confirmed Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The district court 

held that debtor lacked standing to seek modification of the 

confirmed plan. We affirm. 

Debtor commenced this voluntary bankruptcy action under 

Chapter 11, seeking reorganization. The Official Committee of the 

Unsecured Creditors and the Official Committee of the Equity 

Security Holders jointly proposed a plan of reorganization. The 

plan included a provision appointing Arthur Lipper III, chairman 

of appellee, to the board of directors of The Phoenix Resource 

Companies, Inc., the reorganized debtor. The bankruptcy court 

confirmed the plan. 

Before the effective date of the plan, debtor and Charles E. 

Ramsey, Jr., the examiner, filed a motion to modify the plan to 

eliminate Mr. Lipper from the board of directors of the 

reorganized debtor. Stating that the reorganized debtor had 

standing to modify the plan, the bankruptcy court granted the 

motion. 

Appellee appealed to the district court, which reversed the 

modification order. The district court determined that debtor was 

not the reorganized debtor, and, therefore, it lacked standing to 

seek modification of the confirmed plan of reorganization. Debtor 

appealed. 

"We review the bankruptcy court's decision under the same 

standard used by the district court, and affirm when the 

bankruptcy court's factual findings are not clearly erroneous[.] 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6361 Document: 010110130241 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 2 
-

We review the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions de novo." In 

re Burkhart Farm & Livestock, __ F.2d __ , No. 90-8067, slip op. 

at 3 (10th Cir. July 11, 1991)(citations omitted). 

The issue before us on appeal is whether debtor is the 

reorganized debtor contemplated under 11 u.s.c. § 1127(b) such 

that debtor had standing to seek modification of the confirmed 

plan. Section 1127(b) provides in part that "[t]he proponent of a 

plan or the reorganized debtor may modify such plan at any time 

after confirmation of 

consummation of such plan 

such plan 

II 

and before substantial 

It is undisputed that neither debtor nor Mr. Ramsey were 

proponents of the plan. Also, it is undisputed that Mr. Ramsey is 

not the reorganized debtor. Debtor, however, argues that it is 

the reorganized debtor. 

We disagree with debtor's argument that it is the reorganized 

debtor. As the district court determined, the reorganized debtor, 

as defined by the confirmed plan, is Phoenix Resources, which 

comes into existence when the plan takes effect and the debtor 

ceases to exist. Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the 

reasons stated by the district court in its order of October 15, 

1990. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6361 Document: 010110130241 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 3