Opinion ID: 500749
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whatever arguments they did raise in their memoranda were both groundless and misleading.

Text: 17 3. They never really attempted to comply with the lien hearing schedule, apparently preferring to assume they could ignore that process and then reopen the matter on appeal. 18 Id. at 457. The district court noted that, in its Rule 11 memorandum, Levit & Mason ... assert they have a colorable argument that the transactions by the debtors (as sellers) ought to be treated--as to the sellers' creditors, not the buyers' creditors--as consignments rather than sale-or-return transactions. Id. The court stated: First, nothing in the UCC or the case law supports their position[;] ... [s]econd, the assertion [supra ] they now advance was never even hinted at in their briefs before this Court.... Id. The district court concluded that Levit & Mason have failed utterly to meet the requirement that their appeal on Committee's behalf was well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Id. at 458. Accordingly, the district court ordered L & M to reimburse the Banks for attorneys' fees attributable to the issues decided by the initial opinion. 6 Id. II