Opinion ID: 160589
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Commitment to maintain capital

Text: 19 In any case of statutory construction, the starting point of our analysis must begin with the language of the statute itself. Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 208 F.3d 871, 876 (10th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed, 69 U.S.L.W. 3269 (No. 00-507) (Oct. 3, 2000). When interpreting statutory language, this court must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole. True Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 170 F.3d 1294, 1299 (10th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The meaning of the words in the statute must be construed in their ordinary, everyday sense. Chickasaw, 208 F.3d at 876 (quotation marks and citation omitted). With this framework of statutory construction in mind, we must resolve whether Overland Financial's net worth maintenance stipulation constitutes a capital maintenance commitment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §365(o). We think it does. 20 The crux of Overland Financial's argument and the bankruptcy court's decision is a commitment to maintain capital, under 11 U.S.C. §365(o), must take the form of an enforceable contract. Overland Financial argues, and the bankruptcy court agreed, the stipulation is informal and unenforceable because it pre-dates the 1984 regulation 8 requiring formal net worth agreements, lacks consideration, and is open-ended. Overland Park, 217 B.R. at 884-85. According to Overland Financial, the pre-1984 stipulations were merely acknowledgement [sic] by the holding company of the regulatory requirement that the savings association's capital must be maintained at a minimum level in order for the holding company to continue its operation of the savings association. We disagree with Overland Financial's strained reading of the statute and its attempt to re-characterize the stipulation as a mere acknowledgment. 9 21 The plain language of 11 U.S.C. §365(o) reads any commitment by the debtor ... to maintain the capital .... Based on our reading of this particular statutory language, in the context of the statute as a whole, it is apparent that nowhere in 11 U.S.C. § 365(o) does Congress mention the commitment must be contractual, executory, formal, or post-1984. Congress undisputedly knew how to include executory or other limiting language, but Congress did not do so in § 365(o). Compare 11 U.S.C. § 365(a)-(n) with 11 U.S.C. § 365(o). Based on the plain language, we refuse to import Overland Financial's constrictive requirements into the statute's express language. It is well recognized by this circuit that in drafting legislation, we assume Congress says what it means. Sundance Assoc., Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804, 808 (10th Cir. 1998). In 11 U.S.C. § 365(o), Congress clearly said any commitment. 22 When Congress does not define a word, its common and ordinary usage may be obtained by reference to a dictionary. True Oil, 170 F.3d at 1299 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The common definition of commitment is an '[a]greement or pledge to do something.' Firstcorp, 973 F.3d at 249 n.5 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 248 (5th ed. 1979)). The facts of this case show Overland Financial's stipulation is well within the boundaries of this definition, and unequivocally constitutes a commitment. First, the language employed in the stipulation is mandatory and evinces Overland Financial's understanding it is obligated to maintain, and if necessary infuse, capital in order to ensure Overland Financial's compliance with federal regulatory code. Overland Financial even admits it understood, at the time of the signing, the stipulation was an integral condition precedent to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board's approval of the acquisition. In other words, Overland Financial could not have acquired Overland Savings & Loan without the stipulation, and the President of Overland Financial personally signed the stipulation. Thereafter, Overland Financial had the privilege of operating Overland Savings & Loan from 1979 to 1992. In reviewing this aggregated evidence, we hold Overland Financial provided, in its stipulation, a unilateral pledge to maintain Overland Savings & Loan's capital. Therefore, Overland Financial's stipulation is a binding commitment. We see no reason why Overland Financial should not be held to its commitment absent a defense.