FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 9, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 68 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNos . 09 -8 08 71 -CV-ASG, 0 8- 27 98 7- BKC-EP InRe: PEGASUS W IRELESS CORP ORATION,
Deb to r.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PEGASUS W IRELESS CORP ORATION, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us ALEX T SAO, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st9, 2 01 0) Befo re BLACK, BARKETT an d HULL, Cir cu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Peg as us W ire le ss Co rp or at io n (P eg as us ) ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er affi rm in g t he bankrupt cy co urt’s d is m is sa l o f Peg as us ’s vo lu nt ary Ch ap te r 11 ba nkrupt cy

cas e fo r cau se un de r 11 U.S.C. § 1 11 2( b) . On ap pe al , Peg as us
co nt en ds : (1 ) th e Ban krup tc y Abu se Prev en ti on an d C on su m er Pro te ct io n Actof 20 05 (BAPCP A) pr ecl ud eddi sm is sa l o f th e cas e, (2 ) th e b an krup tc y fil in g was requi redby N ev ad a la w, and(3) di sm is sa l i s a s ev ere r em edy . After rev ie w, we 1
co nc lu de all of P eg as us ’s arg um en ts lac k m eri t. 2 I. Peg as us co nt en ds BAPCPA c irc um sc rib edth e b an krup tc y co urt’s d is cret io n to di sm is s t he cas e fo r cau se . W it h re ga rdto § 1 11 2, BAP CPA m ad e d is m is sa l o r
co nv ers io n m an da to ry

up on a sh owi ng of c au se subjec t t o s pe ci fie d e xc ep ti on s.

Only the first issue wa s prese nted to the district court, a nd none of the issues were 1 prese nted to the bankr

uptcy court. We g ener ally

will not consider issues raise d for the f irst time on appea l. In re Pan Am erican W orld Airways, Inc. , 905 F.2d 1457, 1461–62 ( 11th Cir. 1990). Neve rtheless, we revie w ea ch issue and f ind them without merit. As the “se cond cour

t of revie w” of

the bankr uptcy court’s judgment, “we independe ntly 2 examine the fac tual and leg al deter minations of the bankruptc y court a nd employ

the same standards of

revie w as the district c ourt.” In re I nt’l Admin. Servs., I

nc. , 408 F.3d 689, 698 ( 11th Cir. 2005). Peg asus does not cha lleng e any fac tual deter

minations on appeal; thus, we a ccept the bankr uptcy court’s f actua l findings a s true. See B rinson v. Raytheon Co. , 571 F.3d 1348, 1350 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). We revie w leg al conc lusions de novo , In re Bilzerian , 100 F.3d 886, 889 (11th Cir. 1996), and dismissals pursuant to § 1112(b) f or abuse of discre tion, In re Bal Harbour Club, Inc. , 316 F.3d 1192, 1194–95 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 2Peg as us do es no t ex pl ai n h ow BAP CPA p recl ud es , rathe r th anm an da te s,

di sm is sa l. Sect io n 1 11 2( b) pro vi de s i n p ert in en t p artth ata bankrupt cy co urt “ sh al l” di sm is s o r co nv erta ba nkrupt cy cas e fo r “ cau se ” u nl es s “ un us ua l ci rcu m st an ces sp eci fic al ly ide nt ifi edby the co urt . . . est ab li sh th atth e reque st edco nv ers io n o r di sm is sa l i s n otin th e b es t i nt eres ts of c red it or s an d the est at e . . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 1 11 2( b) (1 ). W e h av e h el d c au se fordi sm is sa l ex is ts when a ba nkrupt cy pe ti ti on
was no t fi le d i n g oo d fa it h. Se e In re Ph oe ni x Pic ca di ll

y, Ltd. , 84 9 F .2d13 93 , 13 94 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ); In r e Alb an y Par tn er s, Ltd. , 74 9 F .2d67 0, 6 74 (11 th Cir
. 19 84 ). Dis m is sa l i s p art ic ul arl y ap pr op ria te “ whe n the re i s n o re al is ti c p os si bi li ty of aneffe ct iv e reo rg an iz at io n a nditis ev id en t t ha t t he de bt orsee ks m erel y to de la y or f ru st rat e th e le gi ti m at e eff orts of s ecu redcred it or s t o e nf or ce t he ir r ig ht s.” In re Al ba ny Par tn er

s , 74 9 F .2dat 6 74
. Here, t he ba nkrupt cy

co urt d et erm in edcau se fordi sm is sa l ex is te d b ecau se th e cas e was no t fi le d i n g oo d fa it h. The b an krup tc y co urt b as edit s d eci si on on , 3 in te r a li a , Peg as us ’s rep eat edvi ol at io n o f Cal ifo rn iast at e co urt o rd ers , th e

The ba nkruptcy court a lso determined c ause e x isted under § 1112(b)( 4)(B ) base d on 3 “gross mismanag ement of the estate[,]” and under § 1112(b)( 4)(A) as a r esult of “substantial or continuing loss to or diminution of the estate a nd the abse nce of

a re asonable likelihood of reha bilitation.” 11 U.S.C . § 1112(b)( 4)(A) , (B ). 3“ fab ric at ed ” te st im on y of P eg as us ’s Chi ef Fi na nc ia l Offi cer a t t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng , andPeg as us ’s fai lu re t o d em on strat e an y att em ptat r eo rg an iz at io n a fte r it s b an krup tc y

fil in gs . The b an krup tc y

co urt ex pl ic it ly not edth ere wer e n o

“ un us ua l ci rcu m st an ces ” an d c on cl ud eddi sm is sa l, ra th er tha n c on ve rs io n, was in th e b es t i nt eres ts of t he cred it or s an d t he est at e. Bas edon th e b an krup tc y co urt’s 4 fin di ng s, wh ic h P eg as us do es no t d is pu te , th e d is m is sa l fo r cau se was n otanab us e of di sc ret io n. Peg as us ’s con te nt io n t ha t BAP CPA s om eh ow p recl ud edth is res ul t is who ll y wit ho utm eri t. II. Peg as us arg ue s the ba nkrupt cy fil in g was requi redun de r Nev ad a la w, whi ch im po se s fi du ci ary du ti es on off ic ers an d d ire ct or s wi th res pe ctto cred it or s o f an in so lv en t co rp or at io n. Th is is su e is m eri tl es s, as Peg as us fai ls to cit e an y au th or it y ho ld in g t ha t s ta te law ca n abr og at e th e au th or ity ve st edin fed eral ba nkrupt cy jud ge s t o d is m is s ac ti on s fo r cau se un de r § 1 11 2( b)
.

In its reply

brief, Peg asus ar gues conve rsion, rathe r than dismissal, would be in the best 4 interests of the c reditors a nd the estate . Arguments raised f or the fir st tim e in the re ply brief a re deeme d waived. In re Egidi , 571 F.3d 1156, 1163 ( 11th Cir. 2009). Reg ardle ss, this i ssue is meritless. The ba

nkruptcy court e x plicitly

considere d conver sion as an alter native to dismissal and did not err

in concludingdismiss al was the best courseof ac tion. 4III.

Fi na ll y , Peg as us co nt en ds di sm is sa l i s a “ se ve re re m edy res erv edforth e
m os t s ev ere b eh av io r.” As ex pl ai ne d abo ve , th e b an krup tc y co urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n b y

di sm is si ng th is cas e fo r cau se un de r § 1 11 2( b) . Mor eo ve r, itis cle ar Peg as us fil edth is ba nkrupt cy pe ti ti on forth e p ur

po se of a vo id in g i ts ob li ga ti on s t o App el le e. Peg as us ’s egr eg io us co nduc t ea si ly con st itut es “ se ve re b eh av io r.” AFFIRMED.

5