Opinion ID: 2780845
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Partial Summary Judgment

Text: On December 29, 2011, the bankruptcy court denied the Zeltser Group’s motion for partial summary judgment. In the “Procedural History” section of the order, the bankruptcy court discussed the appointment of the Examiner and the production of the Examiner’s report. The bankruptcy court then set forth the material facts concerning the formation and operation of the Valmore Trust, as well as the Gibraltar and New York litigations. The “Material Facts” section made no mention of the Examiner or his report. Based on these material facts, the bankruptcy court rejected the argument that the Valmore Trust was a sham and declined to reverse any findings made by the Gibraltar Court. Furthermore, the bankruptcy court determined that the JWL transaction was abandoned and that pursuant to the unrebutted expert opinion submitted by the Redmond Group, neither legal nor beneficial ownership of Fisher Limited or Grosvenor passed to JWL. The bankruptcy court stated that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7056(f), it was “inclined to determine as a matter of law” that Miselva (then trustee of the Valmore Trust) owned Fisher Limited and Grosvenor. The 17 Case: 12-15595 Date Filed: 02/20/2015 Page: 18 of 57 parties did not dispute that Fisher Limited owned Fisher Island and Grosvenor owned Little Rest. Thus, the bankruptcy court was in effect notifying the parties that it intended to rule that the Valmore Trust owned Alleged Debtors Fisher Island and Little Rest. Nevertheless, the bankruptcy court gave the Zeltser Group an additional 21 days to file a legal memorandum, “based on the existing record,” to persuade the court not to enter summary judgment as indicated. Despite this invitation by the bankruptcy court, the Zeltser Group declined to file any additional memorandum addressing the ownership issue. Instead, the Zeltser Group objected to the “confines imposed” with respect to the permitted memorandum and advised the bankruptcy court that it would “rely on the existing record.” The Zeltser Group did not explain what additional discovery it believed was necessary or what it would prove if given the opportunity to expand the record. During a hearing on January 5, 2012, the bankruptcy court granted the Redmond Group’s oral motion to prepare a proposed memorandum opinion regarding the entry of summary judgment and instructed both the Redmond Group and the Zeltser Group to do so within five days. The Petitioning Creditors (joined by the Zeltser Group) moved for reconsideration of this ruling, arguing that the Redmond Group intended to include in its proposed opinion new findings and 18 Case: 12-15595 Date Filed: 02/20/2015 Page: 19 of 57 conclusions not present in the bankruptcy court’s December 29, 2011 denial of partial summary judgment. On January 10, 2012, the bankruptcy court denied the Petitioning Creditors’ motion for reconsideration as without merit. The bankruptcy court stated that it had no intention of entering an order that supplemented the record. Summary judgment would not be entered on allegedly “new or different” grounds but “rather on the very same undisputed facts and legal grounds” on which the bankruptcy court denied the Zeltser Group’s motion for partial summary judgment.