By order of the Bank ruptcy Appe llate Panel, the prec edential effec t of t his de c isi on is l im ite d to thec as e an d p ar tie s p ur su an t to 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8013-1(

b) . See also 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8010-1©.
F ile Nam e: 12b0008n.06
BA NK RU P TC Y A P P ELLA TE P AN EL OF THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
I n re: GAI

NEY CORPORATI ON, e t al

. , De bto rs
.

______________________________________ BA RRY P. L EFK OWI TZ , as L iquidation Trustee of the Ga iney

Companies L iquidation Trust , Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v . MI CHI GAN TRUCKI

NG, L L C, f

ka Mi chig an Truck A cquisition, L L C dba M Trucking , L L C ,

Def endant- Appellee

.

______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 11-8038

Appea l from the United States B ankruptc y Court fo r t he Wes te rn

Di str ic t of

Mic hig an at G ra

nd Ra pid s
. Ba nkruptcy Case No. 08- 09092, Adver sary Procee ding N o. 10-80483

. Argued : Aug ust 7, 2012
Dec ided and F iled: September 11, 2012
B e fo re : F UL TO N, Mc I VO R, a nd SHE A- STO NU M , B ank ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l Judg e s.

____________________ CO UN SEL
ARG UED: L ouis P. Rochkind, J AFF E RAI TT HEUER & WEI SS, PC, Southfield, Michig an, for App e ll an ts

. M ic h a e l S. M c E lw e e , V A RN U M , L L P, G r an d Ra p id s , M ic h ig an , f

o r A p p ellee. ON B RI E F: L ouis P. R ochkind, Eric D. Novetsky , J AFF E RAI TT HEUER & WEI SS, P C, Sout hfield,F or purp os e s o f t

his op ini on , th e te rm

“ a c c ide nts ” inc lud e s to rt cla ims , a c c ide nt l os s 1 liabiliti es, ca

rg o loss claims, or any other insured loss which occurre d prior to Dec ember 22, 2009. 2 Michig an, for

Appellants. Michae l S. McElwee, VA RNUM, L L P, Grand Rapids, Michigan, f or Appellee

.

____________________ OP IN ION

____________________ TH OM AS H . F UL TO N , B ank ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l J ud g e . The L iqu idatio n T ru ste e in s ix joi ntl y a dmi nis te re d c ha

pte r 1 1 c a se s a

pp e a ls a n o rd e r o f t

he ba nk ru ptc y c ourt wh ic h d ism iss e d h is

a dv e rs ary c omp la int

purs ua nt t o F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Pr oc e dure 12 (b )( 6) fo r f a ilure to s tate a

c la im upon which re lief ca

n be g rante d.
I. ISSU ES ON AP P EAL The main issue pre sented by this appeal is whether the bankruptc y court e rre d in dismi ssing the Appellant’ s adver sary complaint p ursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b) (6). The Ap pe lla nt i s th e L iqu idatin g Tr

us te e fo r t

he De bto rs . In h is c omp la int , th e Ap pell ant s ou g ht a de c larator y jud g me nt t

hat th e Ap pe lle e , M ic hig an T ru c kin g L L C, the purc ha se r o f D e bto rs ’ a sse ts, was liable to De btors’ i nsurer for deductibles billed afte r t he asset sale, but related to acc idents which

oc c ur re d p ri or to t he a sse t sa le

. Th e ba

nk ru ptc y c ourt he ld that the Ap pe lla nt fa ile d to state a

c la im fo r r e lie f b e c a

us e the Ap pe lle e c ou ld n ot b e he ld l ia ble fo r d e du c tib le s whi ch were rel a te d to

acc idents which occ urre d prior to the sale of Debtors’ assets. The issue befor e the Pane l is whether

1 the bankr uptcy court e rre d in holding that the Appe l l an t fa i l ed to s tate a c laim for re lief on the g rounds that the APA, the Sale Orde r, the Plan a nd the Orde r Confirming the Plan established that the Appellee had no oblig ation to reimburse the insurer f or deduct i b les related to acc idents that

occur red pr ior to the sale to the Appe llee.
For the re asons that follow, we aff irm the bankruptc y court’s May 6, 2011 order dismiss ing the Appellant’ s adver sary complaint pursuant to F eder al Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b)( 6) for f ailure to state a c laim for re lief.3 II. JU RI SDI CT ION AND STANDARD OF RE VI EW
Th e B ank ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l of the Sixth Cir c uit ha s jur isd ic tio n to dec ide thi s a pp e a l. The United States District Court for the Western District of Michig an has authorized appea ls to the Pane l and no pa rt y ha s ti me ly

e le c te d to have thi s a

pp e a l he ard

by the di st ri ct cou rt

. 28 U. S.C. § 1 58 (b )( 6) , (c)(1 ). A f

ina l or de r o f t

he ba nk ru ptc y c ourt may be a pp e a le d a s o f r ig ht p ur su ant t o 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)

. For purposes of appea l, a final order “ends the litigation on the merits and leave s nothing for

the cour t to do but ex ecute the judg ment.” Midlan d A s p h a l t Co r p. v. United S tate s , 489 U.S. 794, 798, 109 S. C t. 1494, 1497 (1989) (c itations omi tted). An orde r dismissing an adve rsar

y complaint under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 12( b)(6) is a final, appe alable or der. Kaye v . Agripool, SRL (

In re M urray, Inc

. ), 392 B .R. 288, 292 (B.A .P. 6th C ir. 2008).
A bankr uptcy court’s or der dismissing a complaint for f

ailure to state a

claim under

Fe dera l R u l e of Civil P roce dure 12( b)(6) is reviewe d de novo . “Unde r a de novo s ta n d ar d o f r e v ie w , the revie wing court de cides an issue independe ntly of, and w ithout defere nce to, the tr ial court’s deter mination.” Me nn inge r v . A c c redite d H om e Le nd

e rs ( In re M orgeson ), 371 B .R. 798, 800 (B

. A. P

. 6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Trenish v. Norwest Bank Minn., N.A. ( In re Pe ria nd

ri ), 266 B .R. 651, 653 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 2001))

. Contract interpr etation is a matter of law wh i ch is revie wed de novo

. Be nd e r v . Ne we ll W indow Furnishi ngs, Inc. , 681 F .3 d 2 53 , 2 59 (6 th C ir . 2 01 2) ; Rhone-P oulenc Basic Chems. Co. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co. , 6 16 A. 2d 11 92 , 119 5 (D e l. 199 2) . T he de te rm inatio n o f whe the r a c on tr a c t, or a te rm there in, is ambiguous is al so a question of lawrevie wed de novo

. Official Comm. of Unsec ured Creditors v. D ow Corni ng Corp. ( In re Dow Corning Corp. ), 456 F.3d 668, 676 (6th Cir. 2006). Insuranc e policies a re inter prete d under pr inciples of contr act law

. Up joh n Co . v . N. H. In s. Co. , 476 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. 1991). Although a

bankruptc y

court’s inter

pretation of it s o wn orde rs is to be g iven “sig nificant defe renc e,” the standard of revie w var ies depe nding on the ty pe of orde r beingrevie wed or the ty pe of interpr etation the bankr uptcy court pe rfor

med. Terex Corp. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. ( In re Tere x Corp. ), 984 F .2d 170, 172 (6th Cir. 1993). Interpre tation of “a n ag ree d order , like a conse nt decr ee,4

is in th e n at u re o f a contra ct, and the inter pretation of its terms presents a que stion of contrac t int e rp re ta tio n” wh ic h is re vie we d is de novo

. City of Cov ing ton v . Co v ing ton Lan din g Lt d. P’ sh ip , 71 F .3 d 1 22 1, 12 27 (6 th C ir . 1 99 5) . D e sp ite thi s st and ard of re vie w, so me me a sure of de fe re nc e is sti ll g ive n to the c ourt ’s int e rp re tatio n of its or de r b e c a

us e “ fe w p e rs on s a

re in a be tte r p os iti on

to understand the meaningof a c onsent dec ree than the district judg e who oversa w and appr oved it.” Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chi ppewa Indians v. Engler , 146 F.3d 367, 372 ( 6th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted) (interna l quotation marks omitted).

I n contra st, a bankruptc y court’s inter

pretation of order s in which it d o es “n o t rely on or interpre t the Ba

nkruptcy Code” is re viewed unde r an a buse of discr etion standard. Terex Corp. , 984 F.2d at 172. This standard of revie w applies to a bankruptcy court’s inter

pretation of a conf

irmation order

. Id.

III . F AC TS

On Oc t o b er 14, 2008, six related entities, Gaine y Corporation, Ga iney

Transpor

tation Service s, I nc., Super Ser

vice, Inc., F reig ht B roker s of Amer ica, Inc., L ester Cog g ins Trucking , I nc., and Ga iney

I nsuranc e Servic es, Inc. (c oll e c ti v e ly “ D e b to rs”) filed voluntary petitions for relief

under chapte r 11 of the B ankruptc y Code in the Western District of Michig an. Pursuant to an Oc tober 16, 2008 bankruptc y

court orde r, the c ases a

re be ing jointly

administered.

The De btors are privately held Michig an cor

porations which “primarily provide[d] nationwide over

the roa d trucking , fre ight ha uling, a nd related fre ight br okera g e and log istics

se rv ic e s” in the U. S. an d Can a da . ( Di sc los ur e State me nt at § 3 .1 , B ank r. Ca se No . 0 8- 09 09 2, ECF No. 1507.) Collect i v el y , t h e D eb t o rs em p l o y ed“ap p ro x i m at el y 1 , 7 0 0 p eo p l e” an d

“o p er at e[ d ] a t o t al ong oing f leet of a pp ro x i m at el y 1 ,600 trac tors and 3,200 tra ilers.” ( Id. ) G ive n th e natur e of

the ir operati o n s , “t h e De btors incur[red] claims on acc ount of bodily injuries, proper

ty damag es, and claims for worke r’s compensation suff ere d in c onnection with a utomobile accide nts involvi ng the Debtors’ Rolli ng Stock and matters involving its employ ees.” ( Id. at § 3.4(d).) At all times pre- a nd5

po st- pe tit ion , th e De bto rs ma int a ine d li a bil ity i n s u r a nc e wi th s e ve ra l di ff

e re nt i ns ur e rs to c ov e r t

he se claims. The De btors administered t h e i n suranc e cla ims themselves throug h Gainey I nsuranc e Service s, I nc.

On Oct ob er 9, 2009 , th e De bto rs fi le d a mot ion to s e ll s ub sta

nti a lly a ll o f t he ir a sse ts i n
acc ordanc e with 11 U.S.C. § 363(f ). The sa le was to oc cur throug h use of a bidding pr ocess whe reby potential purcha sers would submit proposed asset purc hase a g ree ments. Any assets not purcha sed by the su c c e ssf

ul b idd e r w ou ld r e ma in p art of the De bto rs ’ b ank

ru ptc y e state s. I n s e e kin g a

uth or ity t o s el l i t s as s et s , t h e D eb t o rs s o u gh t t o as s u m e cer t ai nex ec u t o ry co n t ra ct s an d

l ea s es an d

t h en as s i gn them to the purcha ser.

The De btors filed their First Amended J oint Pl an of Reor g anization on October 13, 2009, (“Plan” ). As par

t of the plan c onfirmation proc ess, a L iquidation Trust was established, and B arr y P. L efkow itz (“A

ppellant”) was appointed as t he L iquidation Trustee. Cre ation of the L iquidation Tr us t w a s p ro vid e d f

or in t he P lan , and the Pl an in c or po ra te d b y re fe re nc e the L iqu idatio n T ru st Ag ree ment (“Tr

ust Ag ree ment”). The L iquidation Trust was set up primar ily to administ er any assets not sold prior to confirmation, pursue causes of action and insider causes of action that we re
n o t s o ld , r e s o lv e an y o b

je c ti o n s to c la im s an d in te r e s ts , w in d d o w n th e D e b to r s ’ a f f a ir s , and “pa y expenses of the Liq u i d at ion Trust, Claims and I ntere sts arising unde r . . . the Plan, including distr i b u t i o n s t o al l Administ rative Expense Claims . . . .” (Plan at § 5.3( c), B ankr. Case No. 08- 09092, ECF No. 1506.)

I n addition to providing for the creation of the L iquidation Trust, the P lan also provided that

cer tain assets would not be sold throug h the bidding pr ocess but would instead be transfe rre d to the L iquidation Trust. These a ssets included, amongother things, “the Ex cluded Cash.” As define d by the Plan, the “Excluded Cash” c onsisted of $5,000,000 of the Cash he ld by the Reorg anized Debtors a fter the closing of the Sale, to be distributed to the L iquidation Trustee , . . .on the date the Confirmation Order become s a final or der, . . . to fund pa y ments to the holders of Allowed A dminist rative Expe ns e Cl aim s
. . . , Pr ior ity Ta x Cla ims , Se c ur e d T a x Cla ims , O the r P ri or ityTh e “Effec tive Date” was de fined in the Plan as “ the first day following the day

that the 2 Confirmation Orde r become s a F inal Orde r.” ( Plan at § 1.40, Ba nkr. Case N o. 08-09092, ECF N o. 1506.) 6 Claims, Unsecure d L iability Claims . .

. Cure P ay

ments as m ay be required unde r the Sale Orde r, and the fees and expenses incurre d in connec tion with (a) winding down the De bto rs ’ bus ine sse s and re late d af fa ir s, (b ) o bje c tin g to C la ims , a nd (c ) o the rw ise c arr y ingou t th e te rm s o f t

he Plan a nd the L iqu idatio n T ru st A g re e me nt. ( Id. at § 1.45.). The Pl an fu rt h er provided that the Appe llant was re quired to pay , from the $ 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

. 0 0 e xc lu d e d

c a s h , “ [a ]l lo w e d

A dmi n is tr a ti v e E xp e n s e Cl a im s r e p r e s e n ti n g li a b iliti es inc ur re d in the or din ary c ours e of bu sin e ss by the De bto rs po stp e tit ion , to the e xten t not a lr e a dy pa id by the Debtor s prior to the Eff ective D ate, . . . in full.” ( Id. at § 2.2.) 2
The Plan incorpor at ed t h e T rust Ag ree ment by ref ere nce a nd specific ally

desig nated the Appellant as the L iquidation Trustee

. The Trust Ag ree ment rec og nized that the Plan contemplated

c re a tio n o f the L iqu idatio n T ru st a nd that th e Tr

us t A g re e me nt w a s e xec ute d to fa c ili tate imp le me ntatio n of the L iqu idatio n T ru st a s c on te mpl a te d und e r t he Plan. Se c tio n 2 .0 5 o f t he Tr us t Ag ree ment stated that “[t] he L iquidation Trustee acce pts the Trusts Assets and a g ree s to hold and administer the Trust Asse ts for the be nefit of the Benef iciarie s, subject to the terms and c onditions of this Trust Ag ree ment, the Plan and the Confirmation Order.” ( Id. at § 2.05.)

On Novembe r 2, 2009, Michig an Trucking Acquisition, L L C, (“Appe llee”) and the De btors enter ed into an Asset Sale a nd Purchase Ag ree ment (“A PA”) whic h provided for the sale of substantially

all of the Debtors’ assets to the Appellee for $77,800,000.00. The purcha se included all contra cts, other than those that had bee n reje cted. The assumed contr acts include d insurance contra cts cove ring bodily injuries and prope rty

damag e that we re in e x istence at the time of t he cl o s i n g o f t h e s al e. T h e as s u m ed i n s u ra n ce co n t ra ct s we re fo r t h e p o l i cy y ea r J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 9 t h ro u gh May 31, 2 0 1 0

. T h e p o li c ie s c o n ta in e d a “ D e d u c ti b le L ia

b il it y Co v e r a g e E n d o r s e me n t” w hich provided:7

To se ttl e any c la im or “ su it” [the ins ur e r] may pa y a ll or any pa

rt of any de du c tib le shown in the Schedule. I f this ha ppens, y ou must re imburse us for the de ductible or the par t of the deduc tible we paid. (De ducti b l e L i ab i lity

Coverag e Endorse ment at 2, Adv. Proc. N o. 10-80483, ECF N o. 21-5.) Ac c or din g to t

he De du c tib le En do rs e me nt S c he du le , th e de du c tib le wa s $ 10 ,0 00 .0 0 p e r a c c ide nt.

Th e Ap pe lle e ’s purc ha se of the De bto rs ’ a sse ts a lso inc lud e d " a ll c re dit s, pr e pa id e xpe ns e s, etc.” which included mone y the Debtor s had g iven to the insurer to “be dr awn d o wn to satisfy , or partially satisfy the Debtors' obligations t o pay the deductible amounts (or other permitted cha rg es under the v ar i o u s insurance policies).” ( Mem. Op. at 4-5, A dv. Pro. No. 10-80483, ECF N o. 35; APA at § 2.1(a )(vii).) T he APA also provide d that the Appellee would provide c laims service and administer all insuranc e cla ims following the c losing of the sale.
Secti on 2.4 of the APA is entitled " Assumption of Assumed L iabilities: Ex clusion of Exc lud e d L ia

bil iti e s. " Sub se c tio n ( a )( i) of that se c tio n p ro vid e s:
On t h e C l o s i n g Da t e, P u rc h as er s h al l as s u m e a n d

agr ee t o p ay , p er fo rm an d d i s ch ar ge when due only

the following liabiliti es and no othe r liabil i t i es of any Seller or the B us ine ss ( i) a ll l ia

bil iti e s and ob lig a tio ns of Se lle rs re latin g to the Pur c ha se d A sse ts, including liabilities and oblig atio n s under the Assumed Contracts, but only to the exte nt such liabili ties and obligati ons first arise and are re l a t ed t o periods subsequent to the closing. (APA at § 2.4(a )(i), A dv. Proc. No. 10-80483, ECF No. 15- 1) (e mphasis added) . The a ssumption of the a ssume d li a

bil iti e s w a s to take e ff

e c t up on the c los ingof

the sa le . Se c tio n 2 .4 (c ) o f t he APA pr ov ide d th a t [e] x cept a s otherwise e x pressly assumed by P u rchaser pur suant to Section 2.4(a) here of, Purcha ser sha ll not assume or pay , perf orm or discha

rg e, nor sha ll Purchaser be re sp o n s i b l e, dire ctly

or indirec tly , for a

ny other de bts, obligations, ac counts or trade pay ables, Contrac ts, or liabiliti es of a ny Seller . . . .The Plan and the Trust Ag ree ment also failed to de fine “ liability ” or “ obligation.” 3 “Assumed L iabilities” are those liabiliti es set for th in § 2.4(a) of

the APA. 4 The ter m “Encumbra

nces” was de fined in t he S ale Order as “any and all liens (statutory

or 5 otherwise) . . . and “oblig ations [and] liabiliti es .
. . whether known or unknown,

. . . filed or unf iled, schedule d or unsche duled, . . . conting ent or non-conting ent, liquidated or unliquidated, . . . whe ther arising prior to or subseque nt to the commence ment of the ba nkruptcy case s, and whe ther imposed by ag ree ment, understanding , law, equity or o t h er wi se, including claims otherwise arising under doctrines of succe ssor liability

. . . other than the Permitted L iens and Assumed L iabilities under the APA . . . ..” (Sale Orde r at ¶ T , Ba nkr. Case N o. 08-09092, ECF N o. 1652.)

8 ( Id. at § 2.4(c) .) Neither "liabilities" nor "oblig ations" wer e define d in the APA. The APA provide d 3 that the ag ree ment was to “be construed, pe rfor med and e nforc ed in ac corda nce w ith, and g overne d by , the interna l laws of the State of Delaw are .” (

Id. at § 16.2.)

The auction of the Debtors’ assets was conducte d on November 16, 2009, at which time the Appellee was de emed the suc cessf ul bidder. The ba

nkruptcy court enter ed an orde r appr oving the sale a nd the APA on Novembe r 19, 2009 (“ Sale Orde r”)

. Effe ctive upon the Closing Date, all persons a nd entities who have held, hold or may hold any Claim (as define d under section 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code) ar e for ever prohibited and enjoined from commencing or continuing in any manner any action or other pr ocee ding, w hether in law or e quity , in any judicial, administrative, ar bitral or oth er p ro ce eding ag ainst the Purchase r, its succe ssors and assig ns, or the Purchase d Assets, with respe ct to any . . . (b) suc cessor

liability

. . . . Ex cept f or the Permitted L iens and Assumed L iabilities, the Purcha ser sha ll not have 4 any liability of the De btors or their e states ar ising unde r or r elated to the Purcha sed Assets. Wit hout limit ing the g ener ality of t he foreg oing, the Purchase r shall not be liable for a

ny claims ag ainst the Debtors or any of t heir pre dece ssors or af filiates, and the Purchase r shall have no succe ssor or vica rious liabiliti es of a

ny kind or cha

rac ter, including, but not limited to, any theory of . . . succ essor or transf ere e liability , . . ., wh et h er kn o wn o r un kn o wn as o f t h e C l o s i n g Da t e, n o w e x i s t i n g o r h er ea ft er ar i s i n g, wh e the r a sse rt e d or una sse rt e d, fi xed or c on tin g e nt, liq

uid a te d o r u

nli qu idate d w ith respe ct to the Debtor s or any obligations of the Debtors a rising pr ior to the Closing Date, . . .

. The P urcha ser has g iven s ubstantial consideration under the APA for the benef it of the holders of E ncumbra nces. The c onsideration g iven by the Purcha ser 5 shall const itute valid and valuable considera tion for the re lease s of any potential claims of succ essor liability of the P urcha ser, which rele ases sha ll be deeme d to have9

been g iven in fa v o r o f t h e Purcha ser by all holders of Enc umbranc es ag ainst the De bto rs or

the Pur c ha se d A sse ts. (S a le Or de r a

t ¶ ¶ 2 3 an d 24, B ank

r. Ca se No . 08- 09 09 2, ECF No . 165 2. ) Par a g ra ph28 of the Sa le Or de r f ur the r p ro vid e s th a t “ [n]othin g c on ta ine d in any or de r of any ty pe or kin d e nte re d in

(i ) t his

c hapte r 11 c a se or

(i i) any re late d p ro c e e din g su

bs e qu e nt t o e ntr

y of thi s O rd e r s ha ll c on fl ic t w ith or der og ate f

rom the provisions of the APA or the terms of this Orde r.” ( Id. at ¶ 28.) Par ag raph 38 provided that “ [t ]o the ex tent there are any inconsistencies be tween the terms of this Orde r and the APA . . ., the terms of this Orde r shall control.” ( Id. at ¶ 38.) The sale of the Debtors’ assets to the Appellee closed on De cembe r 22, 2009.

On Dec ember

31, 2009, the bankr

uptcy court e ntere d an orde r conf i rm i ng the Plan (“Confirmation Order” ). The Confirmation Orde r refer ence d the sale of the Debtor s’ assets to the Appellee as we ll as the establishment and ope ration of the L iquidation Trust. Pursuant t o ¶ 47 of the Confirmation Orde r, “the terms of the Plan a nd this Confirmation Or der shall be dee med binding upon the Debtor s, the Reorg anized Debtor, the L iquidation Trust and L iquidation Trustee

. . . .” ( Id. at ¶ 47.)

On J uly 19, 2010, the Appellant, on be half of the L iquidation Trust, filed an adve rsar y pr oc e e din g a g a inst th e App elle e se e kin g a de c lara tor y jud g me nt t

hat th e Ap pe lle e is r e qu ir e d to reimburse the insurer

for de ductibles related to “auto liab i l i t y o r carg o liability claims, based on mis ha ps inv olv ingthe De bto rs ’ tr a c tor s or tr a ile rs ” that oc c ur

re d p ri or to t he c los ingof

the sa le to the Appellee . (Resp. to Mot. to Dismi ss at 4, Adv. Proc. No. 10-80483. E CF No. 21.) A ccor ding to th e Appellant’s complaint, “none of the Obligations [ to pay the deduc tible] was (i) asser ted, known or in e x istence prior to the Closing [of the Sale to the Appe llee], and/or (ii) re ported on the open ac counts pay able listings of the Debtors (as of the date of Closing provided to the L iquidation Trustee by

the Debtor s.” (Adv. Cplt. at ¶ 30, Adv. Proc . No. 10-80483, ECF No. 1.) The Appellant also alleg ed that any

deductibles that beca m e re i m b u rsable a fter the sale wa s finalized were not obligations that arose prior to the closing of the sale . The Appe llant sought a n order requiringthe Appellee to administer the liability claims and to pay

the insurer

the re imb u rs ement obli g ation10

associate d with the deductible e ndorsement. L ast ly , the Appellant soug ht damag es for the Appellee ’s alleg ed fa ilure to adm i nister the oblig ations as liability claims under the insurance contra cts when the y

came due.
On August 18, 2010, the Appellee filed a motion to dismis s the adve rsar y proce eding pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b)( 6). The Appellee asser ted that the APA and the Sale Orde r spec ifically

provided that the Appellee would have no suc cessor liability and would be responsible for

contra ctual liabilities or obligations only to the extent such liabiliti es and oblig ations first arose and were related to periods subseque nt to closing. B eca use the de ductibles at issue we re tied to acc idents that occur red pr ior t o t h e cl osing of the sale, the Appellee claimed that the de du c tib le s aro se ou t of

pr e -c los inga c c ide nts fo r whic h th e APAand the Sa le Or de r s pe c if

ically pr ov ide d th e Ap pe lle e wa s n ot l ia ble . T he Ap pe lla

nt fi le d a re sp on se to t

he Ap pe lle e ’s mot ion

to dismiss on October

25, 2010.

The ba nkruptcy court conducte d a hear ing on the Appellee ’s motion to dis miss on November 16, 2010. On May

6, 2011, the bankruptc y

court issued a

n opinion and order

g rantingthe Appellee ’s mot ion . In th e op ini on , th e ba nk ru ptc y c ourt fr a me d th e de te rm ini ngiss ue a s f oll ow s:
When does a tort cla im, or loss, first arise: whe n the tort or loss occur red or when the reque st or demand f

or pay ment is made upon an ins uranc e compa ny which provide s c ov e ra g e fo r a

n a c c ide nt o r l os s? (Mem. Op. at 2, A dv. Proc. No. 10-80483, E CF No. 35.) A fter e x amining the APA, the Sale Or der, the Plan and the Confirmation Order, the bankruptc y court c oncluded that the Appellee ’s obligation to reimburse the insurer for the deductible arose when the tor t or loss occurr ed. Consequently , the bankruptc y

court de termined that any deductibles that wer e related to pre- closing losses wer e pre closing obligations for which the Appellee was not r esponsible under the terms of the A PA and the Sale Orde r.

I n making its determination, the bankr uptcy court stated th at it “is called upon to interpr et its orders and de termine whe n a cla im ‘first arises,’ when a n ‘oblig ation’ beg ins its ex istence, or11

when a ‘liability is cr ea t ed

. ” (Mem. Op. at 16, Adv. Proc. No. 10-80483, E CF No. 35.) T he ba nk ru ptc y c ourt be g an its ana ly sis by loo kin g to the B ank ru ptc y Cod e to de te rm ine wh e n a c la im first arise s within the meaning of the Plan, the Confirmation Or der, a nd the Sale Or der. A fter revie wing the def

initions of “c laim” and “ debt” as set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 101, the bankruptc y court conclude d that beca

use “ d eb t ” is define d as “liability on a cla im,” “cla im” and “de bt” ar e coextensive terms. Ac cording ly , the cour t concluded that
when wor ds such as ‘liabilities,’ ‘oblig ations,’ ‘c laims,’ ‘expenses , ’ “debts,” or

“ a mou nts ” a re uti lize d in

the pr ior c ourt or de rs , to the e xten t a wo rd me ans “ c la im” or “de bt,” all these w ords shall be c onstrued to be c oextensive. (M e m. O p. a t 15 , A dv . Pr oc
. No. 10 -80483 , E CF No . 3 5) (c iti ngSa le Or de r a t ¶ 24 , A PA §§ 2.4(a) (1) and (c) , 5.1(a) (vii) and 10.2(b), and Plan §§ 1.3 and 2.2). The court also stated that “amount,” “ liability ,” “e x pense,” or “oblig ation” ar e all sy nony ms for the te rm “de bt”. (Mem. Op. at 16, Adv. Proc. N o. 10-80483, ECF N o. 35.)
Rely ing on the decision of the U.S

. Court of Appeals for the T hird Circuit in Jeld- W en, Inc

. v . V an Br un t ( In re Grossman’s I

nc. ), 607 F .3d 114 (3d Cir. 2010), the ba nkruptcy court stated that “a ‘ claim’ c an exist under the Code bef ore a rig ht to pa

y ment exis ts unde r state law.” ( Mem. Op. at 20, Adv. Proc. N o. 10-80483, ECF No. 35.) Consequently the bankruptcy court de termined that if a “claim” ex isted befor e the closing of t he sale, any resulting obligation to reimburse the insurer fo r t he de du c tib le a lso e xiste d b e fo re the sal e clos e d. Conve rs e ly , if a “ c la im” did

no t e xist unti l

a ft e r t he sa le c los e d, the n any re su lti ng ob lig a tio n to pa y the de du c tib le did no t e xist unti l th a t ti me
e ith e r. B e c a

us e a ll o f t

he c la ims a t issu e in thi s ca se e xiste d be fo re the sa le of the De bto rs ’ a sse ts to t he Ap pe lle e wa s f

ina l, t he ba nk rup tcy court

c on c lud e d th a t th e Ap pe lle e wa s n ot o bli g a te d to “pay the re lated and c oextensive debts, whether to the tort claimants or the insura nce c ompany

for the deduc tible amounts.” ( Id. at 21.) In a footnote, the bank ru p t cy court a lso noted that the Appellee ’s obliga

tion to adminis ter the insurance claims did not obligate it to pay “re lated losses or deductible amounts out of its own pocke t.” ( Id. at 21, n. 9.)12

The ba nkruptcy court a lso determined that a naly zing the issue under

contra ct principles would “yield[] the same r esult.” ( Id. at 21.) B eca

use a confirme d plan is a newcontra ct betwe en the debtor a

nd its creditors, a cou rt i s re q u ired to interpr et a c onfirmed plan “ ‘under long- settled

c o n tr a c t l aw p r in c ip les.’ ” ( Id. ) ( ci t i n g Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Dow Corning Corp. ( In re Dow Corning, Corp. ), 45 6 F. 3d 66 8, 67 6 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 6) ). I f t

he re is n o ambi g uit

y in a conf irmed plan, then a

court must enfor ce it as w ritten.

I n interpre ting the Plan in this particular case , the bankr

uptcy court stated that it wa s require d to l oo k to the Con fi rm a tio n O rd e r, the Plan, the Sale Ord er, and the APAbe c a

us e the y we re “ a ll i n t er t wi n ed

. ” ( M em
. Op

. at 2 1 , Ad v . P ro c. No

. 1 0 -8 0 4 8 3 , E C F N o
. 3 5 ) ( ci t i n g W onderland Shopping Ctr. Venture Ltd. P’s h i p v. C DC Mortg. Capital

, Inc. , 274 F.3d 1085, 1092 ( 6th Cir. 20 01 )) . I f n o ambi g uit

y e xiste d in

any of tho se do c ume nts , th e n th e c ourt state d it wa s o bli g a te d to enfor ce it acc ording to the t erms. Be cause all of t he re levant docume nts provided that the Appe llee would only

be re sponsible for liabilities or obligations that arose and we re r elated to e vents occ urring

a ft e r t he sa le c los e d an d be c a

us e the do c ume nts a lso pr ov ide d that the Ap pe lle e wo uld no t be lia ble for a ny claims ag ainst the Debtors which arose prior to the closing of the sale , the bankr uptcy court deter mined that [t ]he court has no diff

iculty in interpre ting the combined langua g e in the g overning c ourt or de rs a s ma

nd a tin g tha

t [th e Ap pe lle e ] is no t lia

ble fo r c la ims or ob lig a te d to pa y any re late d d e bts fo r a

ny and a ll t or t cla ims , ac c ide nt lia

bil iti e s, c arg o loss c la ims or other ty pes of claims that arose from occur renc es (or omissions) prior to Dec ember 22, 2009, i.e., the closingof the sale

. (Mem. Op. at 22, Adv. Proc. No. 10-80483, E CF No. 35.)

The ban kr

u p tc y c o u rt a ls o d e te r

mi n e d th a t t h e A p p e ll an t, a s th e L iq

u id a ti o nT r

u s te e , was bo un d b y the c ourt ’s pri or

or de rs , th e Pla

n, the Con fi rm a tio n O rd e r a nd the Tr us t A g re e me nt. Be cause (1) the Plan c re at ed the L iquidation Trust, incorporated the Trust Ag ree ment, and desig nated the A

ppellant as the L iquidation Trustee , (2) the Trust Ag ree ment ref ere nced the Plan, (3) the Plan c ontemplated the Sale Orde r which incor porate d the APA, (4) the Confirmation Order acknow ledg ed the L iquidation Trust and (5) § 2.05 of t he Trust Agr eeme nt specifica lly stated thatRul e 12 pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art : 6

(b) How t o P r e se nt De fens e s. Ev e ry de fe ns e to a c la im f or re lie f i n any ple a din g mus t be a sse rt e d in the re sp on siv e ple a din g if on e is re qu ir e d. B ut a

pa rt y may a sse rt the fo llo wi ngby

mot ion :

13 the Appellant would “hold and administer the Trust Assets

. . . subject to the terms and conditions of this Trust Ag ree ment, the Plan, and the Confirmation Order,” the Appellant wa s bound by the terms of a ll the releva

nt documents and orde rs. C onsequently , the bankr uptcy court c oncluded that the Appellant wa s also bound by the cour t’s interpre tation of its prior order s.

Be cause the terms of the APA, the Sale Or der, the Plan, and the Confirmation Orde r we re unambig uous and bec ause the Appellant wa s b o u n d b y the provisions in those documents, the bankruptc y

court c oncluded that the A p p el l an t ’s complaint failed to state a cog nizable claim for relief . Acc ording ly , the bankruptc y court g rante d the Appellee ’s motion to dis miss the complaint pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b) (6).
The Appe llant f

iled a timely notice of a

ppeal of the bankr uptcy court’s opinion and or der on May 19, 2012.

IV . D ISC USS ION

The issue be fore the Panel i s whether the bankr

uptcy court e rre d in dismi ssing the Appellant’s c omplaint on the gr ounds that the AP A, t he S ale Order, the Plan and the Confirmation Orde r established that the Appellee had no obligation to reimburse the insurer for deductibles re lated to acc idents that occur

red pr ior to the sale of

the Debtor s’ assets to the Appe llee.

Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b) (6) pe rmits a def en d ant t o move for dismissal of a complaint prior to filing a responsive pleading

. Such a motion “cha lleng es the leg al theory of the 6. . . (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be g rante d . . . .

A m o t i o n asser

ting a ny of these de fense s must be made bef ore pleadingif a re sponsive pleadingis allowed. 14 complaint, not the sufficie ncy of a ny e v id e n c e ” wh ic h

may be discove red. Advanc ed Cardiovascular Sys., Inc . v. SciM

ed Life Sys., Inc

. , 9 88 F .2 d 11 57 , 11 60 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 3) . “ Th e purp os e of the ru le is to allow the court to eliminate ac tions that are f atally flawe d in their leg al premises and destined to fail . . . .” Id

. (c i t i n g Neitzke v. W illiams , 490 U.S. 319, 326-27, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1832 (1989))

. A complaint survives a Rule 12(b)( 6) motion if the “[f] actua l alleg ations [are] enoug h to raise a rig ht to relief a bove the speculative level, on the assumption that all the alleg ations in the complaint are true (e ven if doubtful in fa ct).” Be ll At lan tic Cor p. v . Two mb ly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. C t. 1955, 1965 (2007) ( i nterna l citations omit ted). A c omplaint need only provide e noug h fac ts to “state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.” Id . at 570.

I n th e fa c e of

a Rul e 12 (b )( 6) mot ion , a c omp la int

mus t be c on str

ue d in the lig ht m os t fa vo ra ble to the pla int if

f, the a lle g a tio ns of the c omp la int mus t be a c c e pte d a s tr ue , a nd a ll r e a so na

ble infere nces must be d ra wn i n favor of the plaintiff. Tam Travel, Inc. v . Delta Airlines, Inc. ( In re Travel Agent Comm’n A ntitrust Liti g. ), 583 F .3d 896, 903 (6th Cir. 2009)

. “ ‘[T] o survive a motion to dismi ss, the complaint must c ontain either dire ct or infe rential a lleg ations respe cting all materia l el em ents to sustain a rec overy under some via

ble leg al theory .’ ” Id

. (q u o t i n g E id s o n v. State of Te nn . D e p’ t of Chi ldr e n’

s S e rv s. , 510 F.3d 631, 634 (6th Cir. 2007)). The court ne ed not, howeve r, “ac cept as true leg al conclusions or unwar rante d fac tual infere nces, and conclusory alleg at i o n s or l ega l co n cl u s i o n s m as qu er ad i n g as fa ct u al al l ega t i o nwi l l n o ts u ff i ce
. ” Id

. ( in

te r n a l c itations omi tted) (interna l quotation marks omitted.)

To deter mine whether

the Appellant’s complaint failed to state a plausible claim for

relief , the Pane l mu st d e te rm ine if the ba nk ru ptc y c ourt c or

re c tly c on c lud e d th a t th e ob lig a tio n to re imb ur se the ins ur e r fo r any

de du c tib le s ari se s w he n th e a c c ide nt o c c ur re d, ra the r t ha n w he n th e de du c tib le become s pay able unde r the De ductible L iability Endorseme nt.15

I n the APA, the Appe llee ag ree d to assume liabili t i es an d o bligations under the insuranc e contra cts, “ but only to the exte nt such liabili ties and obligations first arise and are related to periods subsequent to the closing .” (A PA a t § 2 .4 (a )( i) , A dv . Pr oc . N o. 10 -8 04 83 , E CF No . 1 5- 1. ) ( e mph a sis added) . The De ductible L iability Endorseme nt pr ovides that if the insurer pa y s the deduc tible, “[the ins u re d] m ust reimburse the [insurer] for the deductible or the par t of the deduc tible [ the insurer ] paid.” ( Deduc tible L iability Endorseme nt at 2, Adv. Proc. No. 10- 80483, ECF No. 21- 5.)
Neither the APA nor the Sale Orde r def ined when liabilities and obli gat i o n s arose
. Ad dit ion a lly , th e c op y of the ins ur anc e po lic y su bmi tte d by the Ap pe lle e in t he ma in b ank

ru ptc y c a se did not define when liabiliti es or obligations arose
. To answe r t he question of when the obligation to p ay de du c tib le s aro se , the ba nk ru ptc y c ourt ana log ize d the te rm s “ ob lig a tio n” and “ lia bil ity” to the terms “c laim” and “ debt.” Unde r the B ankruptc y Code, (5) The term “c laim” means- - (A ) r i g h t t o p ay

m e n t , w h e t h e r o r n o t s u c h r i g h t i s r e d u c e d to judgme nt, liquidated, unliquid at ed, fix ed, conting ent, mature d, unmatured, disputed, undisputed , leg al, equitable, se cure d, or unsecur ed; or ( B ) r ig h t t o ane qu it a

b le r e me dy

f o r b r e a c h o f

p e r f o r ma n c e if such br e a c h g ive s r is e to a ri g ht t o p ay me nt, wh e the r o r n ot s uc h r ig ht t o an eq ui ta ble re me dy

is r e du c e d to jud g me nt, fi xed , c on tin g e nt, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, sec ured, or unsecur ed.

. . . . (1 2) Th e te rm

“ de bt” me ans lia

bil ity on a c la im. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5) and (12). The B ankruptc y Court concluded that the insurer’ s rig ht to pay ment was identica l to a cla im as defined by the B ankruptc y

Code. Using that analy sis the insurer’s r ight to pay ment on its claim arose a t the time the debt was c reated, which wa s at t he time the ac cident

oc c ur re d. Sin c e the Ap pe lle e on ly a ssume d li a

bil ity fo r l ia bil iti e s and ob li gati on s w hic h a ro se subsequent to the closing , the insurer ’s rig ht to pa y ment was from the Debtors not f rom the Appe llee.16

The Appe llant raises seve ral a rg uments as to why the bankruptc y court err ed in holdingthat the Ap pe lle e ha d n o li a

bil ity to pay de du c tib le s re late d to ac c ide nts wh ic h oc c ur re d pri or to the sa le of the De btors’ asse ts to the Appellee. The Panel will addre ss eac h of the a rg uments below.

A. The Appellant argues that the bankruptcy court erred be cause it failed to construe the APA un de r D e law ar e law

. Se c tio n 1 6. 1 of

the APAc on ta ine d a

“ c ho ic e of

law” pr ov isi on

wh ic h r e qu ir e d th e APAto be c on str ue d u sin g De laware law . T he Ap pe lla nt a rgue s th a t th e ba

nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s fa ilure to expli citly cite De lawar e law r esulted in an incorre ct conclusion. Whil e it is true that the bankruptc y court did not expli citly

ref ere nce D elawa

re la w, the Appe llant’s argu m en t fails bec ause the

a pp lic a tio n o f D e lawa

re law r e su lts in t

he same c on c lus ion

re ached by th e bank

ru ptc y c ourt

. Appl y in g De lawar e law, un a mbi g uo us c on tr a c t te rm s are to b e g ive n th e ir or din ary and pla in meaning

. Eagle Indus., Inc . v. De Vilbiss Health Car e, Inc

. , 702 A.2d 1228, 1232 (Del. 1997). When terms are not defined w ithin a contrac t, “[u] nder well-settled case law, Delawa re c ourts look to dictionaries for

assistance in determining the plain meaningof” u n d ef i ned ter ms. Lor illar

d Tobacco Co. v. Am. Legac y Found. , 903 A.2d 728, 738 (De l. 2006).

Ac c or din g to B la c k’ s L aw D ic tio na ry , “ lia bil ity” is d e fi ne d a s
1. Th e qu a lity

or state of be ingle g a lly

ob lig a te d o r a c c ounta

ble ; le g a l r e sp on sib ili ty to another or

to society , enfor cea

ble by civil remedy

or cr iminal punishm ent . . . 2. (often pl.) A financ ial or pec uniary obligation; debt . . . .
B la c k’ s L aw Di c tio na

ry (9 th e d. 20 09 ). “ De bt” in t ur n is de fi ne d a s “ lia

bil ity on a c la im; a sp e c if ic

s um of money

due by ag ree ment or otherw ise.” Id. “ Cl a im ” is d e f in e d a s “ [t ]h e a s s e rti on of an exis ting r ight; any

rig ht to pay

ment or to an e quitable re medy , even if conting ent or provisional.” Id. “Claim” ca

n include a matured c laim, an unliquidated claim, or a conting ent claim. Id.

“ Ob lig a tio n” is d e fi ne d in B la c k’ s L aw D ic tio na

ry a s 1. A leg al or mora l duty to do or not do something. . . . 2. Aformal, binding a g re e me nt o r a c kn ow le dg me nt o f a lia bil ity to pay a c e rt a in a

mou nt o r t o d o a

c e rt a in17

thing f or a pa rticular pe rson or set of

persons; esp., a

duty arising by

contra ct. . . . See duty (1); liability

(1). . . .
Id. The de finition of “obligation” ref ere nces “ duty .” As de fined, “ duty ” mea ns “[a] leg al obligation that is ow e d o r d

ue to a no the r a nd that ne e ds to be satis fi e d; an ob lig a tio n fo r wh ic h s ome bo dy e lse has a c orre sponding r ight.” Id.
Using these definitions, under D elawa re la w, a pa rty become s liable to another pa rty when the party first has a leg al obligation to the other party

. The De btors’ insuranc e contr acts stated that the deduc tible to be paid by the insured wa s $10,000 per a ccide nt

. T h e insuranc e policies fur ther provided that in settling a claim re lated to an a ccide nt, the insurer c ould pay the deductible. The policy further states: “I f this ha

ppens, y ou [t he insured] must reimburse us for the deduc tible or the part of the deductible we [t he insurer ] paid.” Deductible L iability Coverag e Endorse ment ¶ 2. Under the insuranc e contr act, the D ebtors bec ame leg ally obligated to their i nsurer s at t he time the

a c c ide nt o c c ur

re d b e c a us e e ve ry a c c ide nt g a ve the De bto rs ’ i ns ur e r a ri g ht t o c oll e c t the de du c tib le either directly or after the insurer settled the claim. Under either Delawa re la w or g ener al contra ct law, the insure r’s rig ht to collect deduc tibles related to a ccide nts which occ urre d prior to t he sale was from the De btors. Since the conclusion rea ched by the bankruptc y court is the same re g ardle ss of wh e the r D e lawa

re la w w a s c ite d, the ba

nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s ru lin g is n ot e rr on e ou s.

B

. T h e A p p el l a n t a r g u es th a t th e c o u r t f a i l ed t o p r o p er l y a p p l y 1 1 U. S

. C

. § 3 6 5 (k).

Parag raph 16 of

the Sale Or d er s t ates that a fter c losing, “ the Debtor s shall be re lieved, pursuant to sec tion 365(k) of the B ankruptc y Code, from a

ny fu rt h er l i ability

under the Assumed Contracts.” Sec tion 365(k) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that “[a]ssi g nment by the trustee to a

n entity of a contra ct or lease assumed under this section relieve s the trustee a nd the estate from any lia bil ity fo r a ny breach of su c h c on tr a c t or le a se oc c ur

ri nga ft e r s uc h a ssi g nme nt. ” 11 U. S.C. § 3 65 (k ). Se c tio n “ 36 5( k) re lie ve s a de bto r o f l ia

bil ity fo r c on tr a c tua lly

c re a te d o bli g a tio ns on ly upon a complete assig nment o f rig hts and duties under the contra ct.” 2 Nor ton Ba nkr. L . & Pra c. 3d § 46.33 (2012). The Appellant’s arg ument that 11 U.S.C. § 365(k) r equire s the Appellee to pay18

de du c tib le s re late d to ac c ide nts wh ic h oc c ur re d pri or to c los ingis o nly

su c c e ssf ul if the deduc tibles at i s s u e i nt h i s ca s e a re l i ab i l i t i es ar i s i n g after the assig nment of the c ontrac t. For a ll the rea sons set forth above , the bankr

uptcy court c orre ctly

ruled that the liability

for the de ductibles arose be for e the Debtors a ssigne d the insuranc e contr acts to the Appe llee. To the e x tent that th e ins urer is owed de du c tib le s f

or a c c ide nts pr ior to c los ing , the ba nk ru ptc y c ourt did no t e rr in h old ingthat 11 U. S.C. § 365(k) wa s inapplicable. The Appellee is only liable for de ductibles relating to ac cidents which

occur red after Debtors a ssigne d the insuranc e contr acts to the Appe llee.

C. The Appellant argues that the language in the “Deduc t i b l e L iabilit y Cove rage En do rse me nt”c re ate

s li ab ili ty on thepa rt o

f th e Ap pe lle e for

de du c ti bl es relate d to accide nts which occurred prior to the sale.
Section C of the Deduc tible L iability Coverag e Endorse ment states “[t] o settle any claim or ‘s uit ’ [the ins ur e r] m ay

pa y a ll o r a ny pa rt of any de du c tib le sh ow n in

the Sc he du le . I f t

his ha pp e ns , y ou must reimburse us f

or the de ductible or the pa rt of the de ductible we pa id.” The A ppellant argues, base d on this langua g e, that the insure d has no obliga tion to the insurer until the insure r see ks reimburse ment for a

deductible the ins u rer paid in settling a claim. The A

ppellant’s ar g ument ig no re s th e pla in l a

ngua g e of the se c tio n h e qu ote s. Th e ins ur e r m ay e le c t to pa

y the de du c tib le to settle a c laim. The cla im ex ists at the time the acc ident occur s . The insure d either pa y s the deductible pr ior to the settlement of the claim or afte r the settlement of the claim when the insurer seeks r eimbursement, but cle arly , the obligation to pay the deductible arises at the same time a s the claim ar ises. The ba

nkruptcy court did not err

when it conc luded that the insuranc e contract did not g ive t he ins ur e r a

ri g ht t o c oll e c t de du c tib le s r e late d to a c c ide nts wh ic h o c c ur re d p ri or to t he sa le from the Appe llee.

D. The Ap

pe lla nt argue

s that the ba nk

ru ptc y c ou rt erre d in find

ing tha t th e “pr e

pa id e x pe ns es” and deposits purchased by the Appellee did not include the obligation to pay the deductibles that were billed after the sale closed.
Th e A P A s t a t e d

t h a tt h e A p p e l l e e ’ s p u r c h a s e o f t h e D e b t o r s ’ a s s e t s i n c l u d e d “ a l l c re dit s, prepa id expenses, etc.” which included monies the D ebtors had pr epaid to the insure r to “be draw n down to satisfy , or par

tially satisfy the Debtor s’ obligations to pay the deduc tible amounts (or other19

permitted cha

rg es under

the var ious insurance policies).” ( Mem. Op. at 4- 5 , Ad v . Pro. No. 10- 80483, ECF No. 35; APA at § 2.1(a) (vii)..) The APA a lso provided that the Appe llee would provide claims service and administer all insurance claims following the closing of the sale. While the Panel

c an o nly sp e c ulate a s to the sp e c if ic purp os e of

thi s la ngua g e , a s h a s b e e n s e t f

or th p re vio us ly , a ll of the doc uments at issue in this case firmly establish that the Appellee was not assuming obligations or liabilities related to pre -sale a ccide nts or injuries. Additionally , in the para g raph de scribing the purcha se of the pr epaid e x penses, ther e is no qualifying la ng uag e stating that t h e deposits the Appellee was purcha sing wer e to be used for any ty pe of liability , let alone liabilities arising out of

acc idents which occ urre d prior to the asse t sa le. The prepa id e x penses we re a lso not designated as “excluded asse ts.” Under both Michiga

n and De lawar e law, a

court cannot enfor ce a

n implied contra ctual oblig ation “wh en t h e ex p ress ter ms of the contra ct do not sug g est” that the implied obligation was inadver

tently omitted. Cincinnati SMSA Ltd. P’ship v. Cincinnati Bell Cellular Sys., Inc. , N o. C.A . 1 53 88 , 1 99 7 WL 52 58 73 , * 5 ( De l. C h. Au g . 1 3, 19 97 ); Cl a rk B r o s
. Sales Co. v. Dana Corp. , 77 F. Supp. 837, 8 4 3 (E.D. Mich. 1999) . Nor c an a c ourt enfor ce a n implied

c on tr a c tua l ob lig a tio n w he n “ the imp lie d ob lig a tio n so ug ht to b e e nf or c e d c on fl ic ts w iththe e xpre ss terms” of the written c ontrac t. Cin c inn ati SMS A L td. P ’s hip , 1 99 7 WL

52 58 73 a t *5 ; Scholz v. Montgomery

W ard & Co. , 468 N.W.2d 845, 849 (Mich. 1991).

E. Lastl

y, the Appellant argues that the bankruptcy court erred in c onstruing the APA, the Plan, theSa le Or

de r a nd theCon fir ma tio n O rd

e r toge the r. Th e Ap pe lla

nt a lle g e s th a t “it i s a

pp ro pr iate to c on str

ue the langua g e of

on e do c ume nt w ith the lang uag e of a

nother only

in the absenc e of an indi cation of a contrary intention and only if the documents ar e contr acts e x ecute d on the same date among the s ame parties that dea l with related

ma tte rs .” (A

pp e lla nt B r. a t 47.) Th e ca se s c ite d b y the Ap pe lla

nt, ho we ve r, do no t su

pp or t th is conclusion. In Simon v. Nave llier Series Fund , No. 17734 , 2 0 0 0 W L1597890 (De l. Ch. Oct. 19, 20 00 ), the c ourt re c og nize d that “ in c on str uin g the le g a l ob lig a tio ns c re a te d b y [a] d oc ume nt, it i s ap p ro p ri at e fo r th e co u rt t o co n s i d er n o t o n l y t h e l an gu age o f t h at d o cu m en tb u tal s o t h e l an gu age of contra cts amongthe same parties executed or ame nded as of the same date that dea l with related matters.” Id. at * 7 ( c i t i n g Crown Brooks Corp. v. Bookstop, Inc. , CIV

. A

. N o
. 1 1 2 5 5 , 1 9 9 0 WL20

26166 (De l. Ch. Feb. 2 8 , 1 9 9 0 ))

. T he bankr uptcy court in this case examined what it called “interr elated w ri t i n g s” including the Confirmation Orde r, the Plan, the Sale O rder , and the APA, in making its dete rmination that there is “ nothing plausible” to support the Appellants’s position that t h e A p p el l ee i s l i ab l e f

o r l i ab i l i t i es o r o b l i gat i o n s t h at ar o s e p ri o r t o t h e c l o s i n g o f t h e s al e. Al t h o u gh not executed on the same d ay , all of these doc uments were rele vant to the issue bef ore the bankruptc y

court.

Mo re ov e r, wh e n c on sid e ri nga Rul e 12 (b )( 6) mot ion

to d ism iss , “ the c ourt

primar ily considers the alleg ations in the complaint, althoug h matters of public re cord, or ders, items appe aring in the rec ord of t h e case, a nd exhibits attached to the c omplaint , also may be take n into account.” Amini v. Obe rlin Col lege , 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2001) (c itation omit ted). “ [C ]ourt fili ng s and do c ke t entri e s” are c on sid e re d ma tte rs of pu bli c re c or d w hic h ma

y be c on su lte d in

de c idi nga

Rul e 12(b)( 6) motion. Tay lor

v . J av itc h, Bl oc k

& Ra thb on e, LLC , No. 1:12CV708, 2012 WL 2375494, *2 n. 2 (N. D. Oh io Jun e 22 , 2 01 2) ; Malin v. JPM organ , No. 3:11–CV–554, 2012 W L 8 9 9 9 4 6 , *3 (E.D. Te nn. Mar. 12, 2012)

.

The Pane l finds that none of the a rg uments raised by

the Appellant de monstrate that the ba nk ru ptc y c ourt e rr e d in dis mis sin g the Ap pe lla

nt’ s c omp la int

fo r f a ilure to s tate a

c la im.

V. CO NC LU SION

For the re asons s et forth here in, the P anel a ffirms the ba nkruptcy court’s Ma

y 6, 2011 order dismiss ing the Appellant’s c omplaint pursuant t o F e d e r a l R u le o f Civil P roce dure 12( b)(6) for f ailure to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be g rante d.