2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-5-2008 

# In Re: THC R/L P C orp P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2429

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: THC R/LP C orp " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 263. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/263* H o n o rab le E u g en e E . S il er, Jr . , S en ior C ir cu itJu d g e f o r th e U n it ed S tat es C o u rt of A ppeal s fort he Si xt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 2429

___________ IN R E : T H C R /L P C O R P O R A T IO N , e t a l.,

D e b to rs/A p p e llan ts

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 01591) Di s t r i c tJ u d g e : Th e Ho n o r a b l e Re n e e M . Bu mb

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober31, 2008 B E F O R E : M cK E E , N Y G A A R D , and S ILE R , C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed: N ovember5, 2008)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l ant , T H C R L P, C orp. , appea l s fr om an or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tw hi ch r ever s ed a ba nkrupt cycour t ’ s or der , concl udi ng t hatt he pl ai n and unambi guous l anguage2

of the J oi ntPl an of Reor gani zat i on ent i t l ed the For m erShar ehol der s t o t he di s t r i but i on packa ge out l i ned ther ei n. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen r emanded t he mat t ert o t he bankrupt cy cou rtfor determ i nati on as t o w hethert he D ebtor s ar e enti t l ed to a credi tun der an u njust enr i chmentt heory . A ppel l antal l eges as err ort he i s s ues l i s t ed i n par agr aph I , t aken v e rb a tim f

ro m its b rie f. B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r, w e w ill a f f i r m. I. T he all egati on s of err or ass ert ed b yapp el l ant ar e as foll ow s: 1. W her e For m erShar ehol der s s ol d t hei rs har es of the comm on s t ock of T H C R ( “O l d T H C R C om m on St ock”) t o pur chas er s on a nat i onal s ecur i t i es m arketbetw een the Pl an r ecor d dat e and the “e x- dat e” e s t abl i s hed byt he N at i onal A s s oci at i on of Secur i t i es D eal er s ( t he “N A SD ”) , w hethert he D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d re v e rsib le e rro r w h e n it i n ter p re ted th e P lan to re q u ire th a t th e D e b to rs m a k e a c a sh a n d w a rra n ts d istrib u tio n d ire c tlyto For m erShar ehol der s , des pi t e pr ovi s i ons of the Pl an thatpr ovi ded thatt he D ebt or s s hal l be ent i t l ed t o deal onl yw i t h, and make t he di s t r i but i on t o, s har ehol der s of r ecor d as of the r ecor d dat e, w ho i n tur n al l ocat ed i tas r e q u i r e d b yf

e d e r a l s e c u r i t i e s l a w t o t h e p u r c h a s e r s o f t h e Ol d THCR C om m on S t ock sol d b yF orm er Shareho l ders.3

2. W hethert he D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orbyi nt erpr et i ng t he P lan in a m a n n e r in c o n sis ten t w ith N A S D U n if o rm P ra c tice C o d e R u le 11140, w hi ch mandat es t hatupon t he s al e of thei rO l d T H C R C om m on S to c k F o rm e r S h a re h o ld e rs tra n sf e rre d to th e ir p u rc h a se rs th e rig h t to recei ve the Plan dis t ri bu t i on pack age f rom D ebtor s. 3. W hethert he D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orw hen i tfound that For m erShar ehol der s w er e ent i t l ed t o r ece i ve a pa r tof the di s t r i but i on packa ge – a pr o r at a s har e of the pr ocee ds fr om t he s al e of c er t ai n r eal pr oper t y– t hathad bee n di s t r i but ed t o t he pur chas er s of the s t ock hel d by For m erShar ehol der s i n compl i ance w i t h a s epar at e or derof the B ankrupt cy C o u rt th a t F o rm e r S h a re h o ld e rs c o n tes ted in th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt b u t d id n o t se e k to sta yp e n d in g th is a p p e a l.

II. T he fa ct s and pr ocedur al hi s t or yof thi s cas e ar e w el l know n t o t he part i es and the cour t , and i ti s notnece s s aryt hatw e r es t at e them her e. T he r eas ons w e w r i t e an opi ni on of the courtar e thr eef

ol d: t o i ns t ructt he D i s t r i ctC our t , t o educa t e and i nfor m t he a tto rn e y s a n d p a rties , an d to e x p lain o u r d e c isio n . W e u se a n o t-p re c e d e n tial o p in io n in cas es s uch as t hi s , i n w hi ch a pr ece dent i al opi ni on i s r ender ed unnec es s arybeca us e the o p in io n h a s n o in s titu tio n a l o r p re c e d e n tia l v a lu e . See U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s for4

t he Thi r d C i r cui t , I nt ernal O per at i ng Pr ocedur e ( I . O . P. ) 5. 3. U ndert he us ual ci r cumst ance s w hen w e af fi r m bynot - pr ece dent i al opi ni on and j udgm ent , w e br i efl ys et for t h t he r eas ons s uppor t i ng t he court ’ s deci s i on. I n t hi s cas e, how ever , w e have c o n c lu d e d th a t n e ith e r a f u ll m e m o ra n d u m e x p lan a tio n n o r a p re c e d e n tial o p in io n is i ndi cat ed bec aus e of the veryext ens i ve and thor ough opi ni on fi l ed byJ udge R enee M . B u m b o f th e D istric t C o u rt. Ju d g e B u m b ’s o p in io n a d e q u a telye x p lain s a n d f u lly su p p o rts h e r o rd e r a n d re f u tes th e a p p e llan t’s a lleg a tio n s o f e rro r. H e n c e , w e b e liev e it w ho l l yun necessaryt o fu rther opine, or offer add i t i on al exp l anati on s and reasons t o those g iv e n b yth e D istric t C o u rt, w h yw e w ill a f f irm . It i s a su f

f icie n t ex p lan a tio n to sa yth a t, es s ent i al l yfort he r eas ons gi ven byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n i t s opi ni on ent er ed the 26th day o f Ap r i l , 2 0 0 7 , we wi l l a f f i r m. III . In su m , fo r th e f

o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the o rde r of

the D istri ct C o u rt ent er ed the 26th dayof A pr i l , 2007.