Opinion ID: 77241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Examiner's Powers

Text: 21 Despite the assurances by both New Power and the Creditors' Committee that neither intended to challenge Enron's claims or interests, other equity holders and the Trustee resurrected the question of their validity in December 2002 after it became clear that all creditors' claims would be paid in full with interest but well before any plan was confirmed. 4 Enron participated in the briefing concerning Riverside's motion for the appointment of an equity committee and the Trustee's motion for the appointment of an examiner. One of the specific purposes for each of these motions was to ensure further investigation of Enron's claims and interests. Enron was also represented at the 17 December hearing at which the court denied the motion for appointment of an equity committee and granted the motion for appointment of an examiner. No temporal limitations on the scope of the examiner's investigatory powers were imposed at this hearing. 22 Further, in the disclosure statement filed in connection with the First Amended Plan, New Power described the bankruptcy court's intention to appoint an examiner to investigate, file a report and take other appropriate actions regarding whether any of Enron's claims should be recharacterized. R-Exh.3-530 at 21-22. As noted by the district court, the disclosure statement contained no mention of a time limitation on either the examiner's investigation or the commencement of any recharacterization action. At the time of the hearing, Enron did not object to the lack of this specification in the disclosure statement. On the basis of the disclosure statement, it voted its equity interests in favor of the First Amended Plan. 23 Finally, all evidence as to the intentions of the bankruptcy court indicates that the court meant the examiner to pursue his duties without reference to the date of plan confirmation, except to the extent the examiner was originally directed to file an initial report prior to the confirmation hearing. In granting the motion for appointment of an examiner, the court explained that it would ascertain [the duration of the investigation] at a later time. R-Exh.8 at 59. In the order appointing the examiner, the court still made no temporal limitations, requiring only that the examiner file a report with the court prior to initiating any action. 5 R-Exh.3-569 at 3. Then, two days after it had confirmed the plan as to the Operating Company, the court extended the deadline for filing of the examiner's initial report, clearly allowing his activities and investigation to continue post-confirmation. Enron participated in all related hearings and briefing. 24 Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the examiner's powers were not in any way limited by time constraints in the First Amended Plan. R2-21 at 10. The record fully supports the contention that all decisions related to the temporal and substantive scope of the examiner's investigation were made by the bankruptcy court independently of any plan confirmation. 6 Thus, we find that the addition of § 12.1 made absolutely no change to the treatment of Enron's claims or interests. 7 25 Additionally, we find that the bankruptcy court's determination that the disclosure statement produced in connection with the First Amended Plan provided Enron with adequate information as to the risk to which its already paid Class 1 claim and its Class 9 equity interests were subject was not clearly erroneous. The statement disclosed the examiner's pending appointment as well as the precise subject matter of his investigation. Even if that were not sufficient, Enron was an active participant in the hearings and briefing related both to the decision to appoint an examiner and the determination of the timing and scope of his investigations. Enron clearly had access to adequate information regarding the treatment of its claims and interests whether they ultimately fell into Class 1 or Class 9. The bankruptcy court's determination is more than plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety. See Holton v. City of Thomasville School Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1351 (11th Cir.2005). There is no clear error. 26