N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
In re : THE VILLAGE AT LAKER IDGE, LLC , FKA M a gnolia

Villa ge , LLC , De

btor,
U.S. B ANK N.A., Truste e , e t a l., by an d through C W C a

p ita l Asse t M ana ge m e nt LLC , sole ly

in its c a pa c ity a s Spe c ia l Se rvic e r, Appe lla

nt,
v. THE VILLAGE AT LAKER IDGE, LLC , Appe lle e , R OB ER T ALAN R

A B KIN, R

e a l Pa rty in Inte re st. No. 13-60038

B AP No. 12-1456
M EM O R ANDUM *

In re : THE VILLAGE AT LAKER IDGE, LLC , FKA M a gnolia

Villa ge , LLC , De

btor, No. 13-60039 B AP No. 12-1474 

# FIL ED
FEB 08 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.U.S. B ANK N.A., Truste e , e t a l., by an d through C W C a

p ita l Asse t M ana ge m e nt LLC , sole ly

in its c a pa c ity a s Spe c ia l Se rvic e r, Appe lla

nt,
v. THE VILLAGE AT LAKER IDGE, LLC , Appe lle e , R OB ER T ALAN R

A B KIN, R

e a l Pa rty in Inte re st. Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Kirsc h e r, Pa

ppa s, a nd Ta y lor, B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 22, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LASNIK, ** Distric t Judge
. The ba

nkruptc y c o urt did not err in de c l ining to de signa te R a bkin’ s c la im

a s be ing a ssigne d a

nd vote d in ba d fa ith pursua nt to 11 U.S.C . § 1126(e ). W e a ffirm
.

** The Honora

ble R obe rt S. La snik, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion. -2-W e re vie w for c le ar e rror the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s finding tha

t a pa rty a c te d in good fa ith. Figte r Ltd. v . Te ac he rs Ins. &Annuity Ass’n of Am. (In re

Figte r Ltd.) , 118 F.3d 635, 638 (9th C ir. 1997). In re vie wing a de c ision for c le a

r e rror, we
m ay not look to what we w ould have done ha d we be e n in t he t r i al c ourt’ s pla c e in the first insta nc e , be c a use that re vie w would be de novo and without de f

er en ce. Ra the r, the s c ope of our re vie w lim its us to de te rm ining whe the r the tria l c ourt re a c he d a de c ision that fa lls within any of the pe rm issiblec hoic e s the c ourt c ould ha ve m a de
. Unite d State s v . Hink s on , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261 (9th C ir. 2009) (c iting Unite d State s
v . Ye llow C ab C o. , 338 U.S. 338 (1949)). Unde r § 1126(e ), “ the c ourt m ay de signa t e any e ntity whose a c c e pta

nc e or
re je c tion of [a

re orga niz a tion] pla

n wa s not in good fa

ith, or wa s not solic ite d or proc ure d in good fa ith or in a c c orda nc e with theprovisions of this title .” Ac c e pta nc e or re je c tion is m a de in ba d fa ith if a c re ditor is “n ot a

tte m pting to prote c t [his] own prope r inte re sts, but [is] , inste a d, atte m pting to obta

in som e be ne fit to whic h [he is] not e ntitle d,” suc h a s a n “ untowa

rd a dva nta g e ove r othe r
c re d itors for som e ulte rior m otive .” In reFigte r Ltd. , 118 F.3d a t 638–39. Ulterior
m otive s inc lude “ m a lic e , ‘ s trike s’ and bla c km a il,” or atte m pts to “ de s troy

an
e nte rprise in orde r to a dva n c e the inte re sts of a

c om p e ting busine ss.” Id. at 639 (c ita tion omitte d). A c re ditor who a tte m pts “ to pre s e rve what he re a sona bly pe rc e ive s a s his fa ir sha

re of the de btor’ s e sta

te ” doe s not a c t in ba d fa ith. Id. -3-(c ita

tion omitte d). Howe v e r, a de btor’ s atte m

pt to se ll c la im s a ga i nst itse lf to “ an inside r or a ffilia

t e for the purpose of bloc k ing a pla n, or foste ring one [ha s be e n]
se e n a s a ba dge o f ba d fa ith.” Id. The ba nkruptc y c o urt c onside re d

a ll re le va nt fa c ts a nd c onc lude d R a

bkin did not votefor Lake ridge ’ s re orga niz a tion pla

n in ba d fa i th. The c ourt a c knowle dge d that R a bkin ha d not c onduc te d m uc h due dilige nc e , but note d that the c la im ’ s purc ha se pric e wa s “ re lative ly sm a ll” and “ ha d the pote ntia l for a big pa y off.” The
c ourt de te rm ine d tha

t R a bkin ha d e nga ge d in spe c ulative inve s ting with no ba d
m otive
. The c ourt a lso a c knowle dge d tha t R a bkin ha d re fuse d to a c c e pt U.S. B ank’ s offe r to buy his c la im for m ore tha n he c o uld re c ove r unde r the propose d
re orga niz a tion pla

n, but note d tha

t R a bkin’ s re fusa l wa s “ re a lly not surprising give n the c irc um sta

nc e s.” The c ourt c ite d U.S. B ank’ s he avy -ha nde d ta c tic s during R a bkin’ s de position a s one re a s on R a bkin sim ply m ay not ha ve “ be [e n ] inte re ste d in de a ling with the

pe ople who m a de the offe r.” Fina lly , the c ourt note d tha t B artle tt ha d

not a ske d R a

bkin to vote

in fa vor of La ke ridge ’ s re orga

niz a tion pla

n. Although wem ay not ha

ve re a c he d the sa

m e re sult a s the ba

nkruptc y c ourt ha d we be e n sitting in its pla c e , we c annot sa

y the c ourt’ s de c ision wa s c le arly
e rrone ous. U.S. B a

nk ha s not prove n tha

t R a bkin ha d ulte rior m o tive s for voting in favor of the c onfirm a tion pla n. Nor ha s U.S. B ank prove n tha t R a bkin wa s a

n -4-inside r, suc h tha t La ke ridge a c te d in ba d fa ith by a ssigning R

a b kin the c la im
. The re fore , the B AP’ s holding, a ffirm ing the ba nk ruptc y c ourt’ s de c ision on ba d fa ith, is AFFIRM E D
.

-5-