Court Opinion

ID: 9412520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-31 18:00:44.701366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:32.049665
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10960        Document: 00516839567             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/31/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                        July 31, 2023
                                      No. 22-10960                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                           Clerk

   In the Matter of Highland Capital Management, L.P.,

                                                                                      Debtor,

   The Dugaboy Investment Trust,

                                                                                Appellant,

                                            versus

   Highland Capital Management, L.P.,

                                                                                 Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:21-CV-261
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         The Dugaboy Investment Trust challenges an order of the bankruptcy
   court that approved a settlement between a creditor and the debtor. The

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10960         Document: 00516839567              Page: 2       Date Filed: 07/31/2023

                                          No. 22-10960

   district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order, holding that Dugaboy
   lacks bankruptcy standing. We AFFIRM.
                FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
           We have previously provided a more extensive background of this
   bankruptcy. See In re Highland Cap. Mgmt., 48 F.4th 419, 424–28 (5th Cir.
   2022). Here, we set out the facts relevant to this appeal.
           In 2019, debtor Highland Capital Management filed for bankruptcy in
   Delaware. The case was transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court
   for the Northern District of Texas. In February 2021, the bankruptcy court
   confirmed the “Fifth Amended Plan of Reorganization of Highland Capital
   Management, L.P.,” (the “Plan”) under which Highland Capital remained
   a debtor-in-possession throughout the bankruptcy case. Id. at 426–27.
           The Dugaboy Investment Trust is a family trust controlled by James
   Dondero, Highland Capital’s founder. Id. at 424–25. It is one of many
   entities under Dondero’s control. Id. Dondero has appealed numerous
   cases, including this one, to this court, though this court has not ruled on all
   of those appeals. 1
           Dugaboy held a pre-bankruptcy fractional 0.1866% limited partnership
   interest in Highland Capital. In re Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P., 57 F.4th 494,

           _____________________
           1
            The pending appeals are: Dondero v. Highland Cap. Mgmt., No. 22-10889; The
   Charitable DAF Fund v. Highland Cap. Mgmt., No. 22-11036.
            This court has ruled upon: The Dugaboy Inv. Tr. v. Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P., No.
   22-10983 (July 28, 2023); NexPoint Advisors, L.P. v. Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, L.L.P.,
   --- F.4th ---, 2023 WL 4621466 (5th Cir. July 19, 2023); NexPoint Advisors, L.P. v. Highland
   Cap. Mgmt., L.P., No. 21-90011; In re Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P., 48 F.4th 419 (5th Cir.
   2022), petitions for cert. filed, No. 22-631 (filed Jan. 9, 2023), No. 22-669 (filed Jan. 20,
   2023); In re Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P., 57 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2023); In re Highland Cap.
   Mgmt., L.P., 2023 WL 2263022, No. 22-10831 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2023).

                                                2
Case: 22-10960       Document: 00516839567            Page: 3     Date Filed: 07/31/2023

                                       No. 22-10960

   497 (5th Cir. 2023). That interest was cancelled under the confirmed plan.
   Id. Dugaboy is now a former equity holder with a subordinated residual
   interest in Highland Capital.
          During the pendency of the bankruptcy, Dugaboy filed three proofs of
   claim. On October 27, 2021, with Dugaboy’s consent, the bankruptcy court
   entered orders withdrawing two of the Dugaboy claims with prejudice. See
   In re Highland Capital Management, L.P., No. 19-34054-sgj11 (Bankr. N.D.
   Tex. Oct. 27, 2021) (Dkt. Nos. 2965, 2966). On November 10, 2021, the
   bankruptcy court entered an order approving a stipulation between Dugaboy
   and Highland Capital withdrawing the third Dugaboy claim with prejudice.
   Id. at Dkt. No. 3007. As a result, Dugaboy no longer has any pending proofs
   of claim.
          We now explain the events that led to this appeal.
          In 2017, HarbourVest 2 invested approximately $80 million to acquire
   a 49.98% ownership in an entity now known as Highland CLO Funding
   (“HCLOF”). HCLOF was managed by a Highland Capital subsidiary.
          In April 2020, HarbourVest filed six proofs of claim in this bankruptcy
   against Highland Capital, seeking more than $300 million based on
   allegations of fraud. Highland Capital settled the HarbourVest claims by
   providing HarbourVest a general unsecured claim of $45 million and a
   subordinated claim of $35 million. As part of the settlement, HarbourVest
   agreed to transfer its interests in HCLOF to Highland Capital or its
   subsidiary, thereby effectively rescinding the HarbourVest investment.

          _____________________
          2
             “HarbourVest” refers to several entities: HarbourVest 2017 Global Fund L.P.,
   HarbourVest 2017 Global AIF L.P., HarbourVest Dover Street IX Investment L.P., HV
   International VIII Secondary L.P., Harbour Vest Skew Base AIF, L.P., and Harbourvest
   Partners, L.P.

                                             3
Case: 22-10960       Document: 00516839567          Page: 4   Date Filed: 07/31/2023

                                     No. 22-10960

            In January 2021, the bankruptcy court approved the settlement
   (“Settlement Approval Order”) over the objections of (a) Dondero; (b)
   Dondero’s family trusts, including Dugaboy; and (c) one of Dondero’s
   charitable organizations, CLO HoldCo, Ltd.
            Dugaboy appealed the Settlement Approval Order to the United
   States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. In September 2022,
   the district court affirmed and dismissed the appeal for lack of bankruptcy
   standing. Dugaboy timely appealed to this court.
                                   DISCUSSION
            This court reviews “the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear
   error, and we review legal conclusions and mixed questions of fact and law de
   novo.”     In re Technicool Sys., Inc., 896 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 2018).
   “Standing is a question of law that we review de novo.” Id.
            “Bankruptcy standing is a prudential standing requirement.” In re
   Dean, 18 F.4th 842, 844 (5th Cir. 2021). “[S]tanding to appeal a bankruptcy
   court order is, of necessity, quite limited.” Technicool, 896 F.3d at 385. To
   determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order,
   this court uses the “person aggrieved” test. Fortune Nat. Res. Corp. v. U.S.
   Dep’t of Interior, 806 F.3d 363, 366 (5th Cir. 2015). This test “is more
   exacting than the test for Article III standing.” Technicool, 896 F.3d at 385
   (quotation marks and citation omitted). An appellant must show that he is
   “directly, adversely, and financially impacted by a bankruptcy order.” Id. at
   384. “Appellants cannot demonstrate bankruptcy standing when the court
   order to which they are objecting does not directly affect their wallets.”
   Dean, 18 F.4th at 844.
            Dugaboy makes several arguments as to why the district court erred.

                                          4
Case: 22-10960          Document: 00516839567                Page: 5       Date Filed: 07/31/2023

                                            No. 22-10960

           First, Dugaboy contends that this court should not employ the
   “person aggrieved” test. Instead, we should hold that the following statutory
   language, which is not a statute about appeals, confers standing to appeal:
           (b) A party in interest, including the debtor, the trustee, a
           creditors’ committee, an equity security holders’ committee, a
           creditor, an equity security holder, or any indenture trustee,
           may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in a case
           under this chapter.
   11 U.S.C. § 1109(b). Dugaboy argues that, as an “equity security holder,” it
   has appellate standing under Section 1109(b). Binding circuit precedent,
   however, compels us to apply the “person aggrieved” test. 3 See In re Coho
   Energy Inc., 395 F.3d 198, 202 (5th Cir. 2004).
           Next, Dugaboy argues that, in any event, it has standing under the
   “person aggrieved” test. Dugaboy predicates its standing on (1) its proofs of
   claim and (2) its residual equity interest.
            Dugaboy cannot rely on its now-withdrawn proofs of claim to support
   standing.      Constitutional mootness requires that the “requisite personal
   interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing)
   must continue throughout its existence (mootness).” Arizonans for Official
   English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997) (quotation marks and citations
   omitted). Because Dugaboy’s proofs of claim have been withdrawn with

           _____________________
           3
              We are not aware of any other circuit that has found Section 1109(b) confers
   appellate standing. As one leading treatise states: “Although section 1109 speaks broadly
   of the right of a party in interest to raise and to appear and be heard on any issue in a chapter
   11 case, the section is silent on the subject of a party’s standing to take an appeal from an
   adverse decision . . . . In general, in order for a person to be a proper party to take an appeal,
   one must be a ‘person aggrieved’ by the outcome of a particular proceeding.” 7 COLLIER
   ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1109.08 (16th ed. 2023).

                                                   5
Case: 22-10960       Document: 00516839567         Page: 6    Date Filed: 07/31/2023

                                    No. 22-10960

   prejudice, they can no longer sustain standing. Therefore, Dugaboy must
   rely on its residual interest.
          Dugaboy also asserts standing due to its residual equity interest.
   Under the Plan, Dugaboy is a “Claimant Trust Beneficiar[y]” and holds a
   “Class A Limited Partnership Interest.” Dugaboy’s Class A is the last
   priority class for potential receipt of future distributions. As the Plan
   outlines, before Dugaboy can receive a distribution, all other claimants would
   first have to be satisfied:
          “Claimant Trust Beneficiaries” means the Holders of Allowed
          General Unsecured Claims, Holders of Allowed Subordinated
          Claims, including, upon Allowance, Disputed General
          Unsecured Claims and Disputed Subordinated Claims that
          become Allowed following the Effective Date, and, only upon
          certification by the Claimant Trustee that the Holders of such
          Claims have been paid indefeasibly in full plus, to the extent all
          Allowed unsecured Claims, excluding Subordinated Claims,
          have been paid in full, post-petition interest from the Petition
          Date at the Federal Judgment Rate in accordance with the
          terms and conditions set forth in the Claimant Trust
          Agreement and all Disputed Claims in Class 8 and Class 9 have
          been resolved, Holders of Allowed Class B/C Limited
          Partnership Interests, and Holders of Allowed Class A Limited
          Partnership Interests.
          Dugaboy insists its “interests are directly and pecuniarily affected by
   the approval of the HarbourVest Settlement.” “Absent the Settlement,”
   Dugaboy says, “there would be $80 million more that would be available to
   satisfy creditors,” thus increasing Dugaboy’s likelihood of recovery.
          That residual equity interest is insufficient to confer standing.
   Bankruptcy standing requires that an appellant be “directly . . . impacted by”
   a bankruptcy order. Technicool, 896 F.3d at 384 (emphasis added). This
   ensures that bankruptcy cases — which “often involve numerous parties

                                          6
Case: 22-10960      Document: 00516839567           Page: 7    Date Filed: 07/31/2023

                                     No. 22-10960

   with conflicting and overlapping interests” — do not lead to appeals that
   “clog up the system and bog down the courts.” Id. at 385. Standing to appeal
   requires that the contested bankruptcy court order have a direct effect on the
   parties’ financial interests. Dean, 18 F.4th at 844.
          What is required here is evidence that the Settlement Approval Order
   has a direct pecuniary effect on Dugaboy. An equity interest holder could
   suffer direct financial injury by an order reducing the debtor’s assets. We
   examine whether such injury is shown here. Under the Plan, Dugaboy’s
   interest in the debtor’s estate is in the lowest of 11 classes of priorities for
   distribution of estate assets, with each class to be paid in full before the next
   class gets paid anything. The debtor’s counsel asserted in oral argument that,
   based on all the record evidence, the debtor’s assets would be completely
   depleted, likely in Class 8 — several classes higher than Dugaboy’s priority
   class. Dugaboy’s counsel did not in response to the court’s questions contest
   this representation or otherwise explain how Dugaboy might recover.
          As a result of these undisputed facts, it is clear that Dugaboy’s
   financial interests are not affected by the Settlement Approval Order. To use
   the language of standing, it is not a “person aggrieved” by the Order.
          Dugaboy also contends that the bankruptcy court improperly
   authorized HarbourVest to transfer its interest to a subsidiary of Highland
   Capital. Because Dugaboy lacks bankruptcy standing, however, it cannot
   challenge that authorization.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          7