Court Opinion

ID: 9557027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:00:34.211472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:19.762395
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                              No. 22-2011
                      ___________________________

                        In re: Simply Essentials, LLC

                                             Debtor

                          ------------------------------

                                Pitman Farms

                                            Appellant

                                       v.

   ARKK Food Company, LLC; Larry S. Eide, in his sole capacity as Trustee

                                            Appellees

                                 U.S. Trustee

                                     U.S. Trustee
                               ____________

                 Appeal from United States Bankruptcy Court
                for the Northern District of Iowa - Mason City
                                ____________

                          Submitted: April 13, 2023
                           Filed: August 21, 2023
                               ____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, MELLOY and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                              ____________
MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

       The Trustee for the bankrupt debtor, Simply Essentials, LLC, filed a Motion
to Compromise under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019(b) and a Motion
to Sell Property Free and Clear of Liens under 11 U.S.C. § 363(f). Pitman Farms,
the owner of Simply Essentials who is also a creditor in this action, objected. Pitman
Farms argued that the sale included Chapter 5 avoidance actions and that such
actions are not part of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a). The
bankruptcy court 1 granted the motion, finding Chapter 5 avoidance actions are part
of the bankruptcy estate. Pitman Farms filed a motion to appeal the decision. The
Bankruptcy Court certified Pitman Farms’ motion to appeal, and this court granted
permission to appeal.2 We affirm.

                                            I.

      Simply Essentials operated a chicken production and processing facility in
Iowa. When Simply Essentials ran into financial troubles, disgruntled farmers filed

      1
        The Honorable Thad J. Collins, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.
      2
          A court of appeals can authorize a direct appeal of a bankruptcy court order:

      (a) if the bankruptcy court, the district court, or the bankruptcy appellate
          panel involved . . . certify that (i) the judgment, order, or decree
          involves a question of law as to which there is no controlling
          decision of the court of appeals for the circuit or of the Supreme
          Court of the United States, or involves a matter of public
          importance; (ii) the judgment, order, or decree involves a question
          of law requiring resolution of conflicting decisions; or (iii) an
          immediate appeal from the judgment, order, or decree may
          materially advance the progress of the case or proceeding in which
          the appeal is taken.

28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A)

                                           -2-
an involuntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy
court appointed a Trustee. Pitman Farms and another creditor, ARKK Food
Company, both filed claims against the estate.

       The Trustee determined the estate did not have sufficient funds to pursue
certain avoidance actions it held against Pitman Farms and received bids to
compromise and sell the actions. Both ARKK and Pitman Farms entered bids for the
avoidance actions. ARKK’s offer included: (1) assuming all risks, costs, and fees of
the avoidance actions, (2) reducing its own claims against the estate from $23.4
million to $2.5 million, (3) providing the estate with the first $600,000 in proceeds
from the causes of action, and (4) providing the estate with 15% of the proceeds of
any additional recovery, after deduction of ARKK’s costs and fees. Pitman Farms
offered to pay $1 million for the avoidance actions, with no other conditions. The
Trustee reviewed the offers, determined ARKK’s offer was superior, and filed the
current motion to approve a compromise and sale. The bankruptcy court approved
the motion to sell to ARKK, and Pitman Farms appealed.

                                           II.

       The only issue on appeal is the legal question of whether avoidance actions
can be sold as property of the estate. “As the facts of this case are undisputed, this
court reviews the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions de novo.” AmeriCredit Fin.
Servs, Inc. v. Moore, 517 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 2008). Section 541(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code defines property of the estate. The parties address two subsections
of § 541(a) as possibly including avoidance actions. Subsection (1) states property
of the estate includes: “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of
the commencement of the case.” Subsection (7) states property of the estate includes
“[a]ny interest in property that the estate acquires after the commencement of the
case.” We address both subsections.

                                          -3-
                                           A.

       Avoidance actions are claims to avoid a transfer of property by the debtor that
was made voidable by the Bankruptcy Code. Avoidance actions include claims to
recover fraudulent transfers and certain preferential transfers made too close in time
to the filing of bankruptcy. Avoidance actions, of course, are causes of action. See
United States v. Nordic Vill., Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 37 (1992) (“the right to recover a
postpetition transfer under § 550 is clearly a ‘claim’”). “Causes of action are interests
in property and are therefore included in the estate[.]” In re Senior Cottages of Am.,
LLC, 482 F.3d 997, 1001 (8th Cir. 2007).

       Pitman Farms argues avoidance actions belong to the Trustee or to other
creditors and are not property of the estate. We disagree. In In re Racing Services,
Inc., we held that while trustees have the first opportunity to bring avoidance actions,
other creditors may seek permission to obtain derivative standing to bring the
avoidance actions on behalf of the estate when a trustee is “unable or unwilling” to
do so. 540 F.3d 892, 898 (8th Cir. 2008). Whether the avoidance action is brought
by the trustee or by a creditor, the action is brought for the benefit of the estate and
therefore belongs to the estate.

       The Supreme Court has interpreted the definition of “property of the estate”
broadly, finding § 541(a)(1) can be read “to include in the estate any property made
available to the estate by other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.” See United
States v. Whiting Pools Inc., 462 U.S. 198, 205 (1983). Our circuit has reinforced
this principal, stating “[t]he scope of this section is very broad and includes property
of all descriptions, tangible and intangible, as well as causes of action.” Whetzal v.
Alderson, 32 F.3d 1302, 1303 (8th Cir. 1994). This language alone bolsters our
conclusion that avoidance actions are property of the estate. However, the Supreme
Court has gone even further, holding there are no requirements in the code “that the
debtor hold a possessory interest in the property at the commencement of the
reorganization proceedings.” Whiting Pools Inc., 462 U.S. at 206.

                                          -4-
       In applying this principle, the Supreme Court held that “property of the debtor
that has been seized by a creditor prior to the filing of a petition for reorganization”
is part of the debtor’s estate under subsection (1). Id. at 209. The Supreme Court
noted that any other outcome “would deprive the bankruptcy estate of the assets and
property essential to its rehabilitation effort and thereby would frustrate the
congressional purpose behind the reorganization provisions.” Id. at 208. While
Whiting Pools does not speak directly to the property at issue in this case, we find
the same logic to apply to avoidance actions.

       The property of the estate includes inchoate or contingent interests held by the
debtor prior to the filing of bankruptcy. See Segal v. Rochelle, 382 U.S. 375, 379
(1966) (“the term ‘property’ has been construed most generously and an interest is
not outside its reach because it is novel or contingent or because enjoyment must be
postponed.”) (interpreting a previous version of the Bankruptcy Code). Avoidance
actions are used to undo transfers made by the debtor prior to the commencement of
bankruptcy that were made voidable by the Bankruptcy Code. Because debtors have
the right to file for bankruptcy and the debtor in possession or the Trustee may file
avoidance actions to recover property, the debtor has an inchoate interest in the
avoidance actions prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings.
Therefore, avoidance actions are property of the estate under § 541(a)(1).

       Even if we were to conclude the debtor does not have an interest in the
avoidance actions prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding, the
avoidance actions clearly qualify as property of the estate under subsection (7) which
includes “[a]ny interest in property that the estate acquires after the commencement
of the case.” The Bankruptcy Code makes these assets available to the estate after
the commencement of the case.

      To the extent that Pitman Farms argues the property is created in a third period
of time, a time that is equivalent to the moment the bankruptcy proceeding
commences, we disagree. Finding such a period of time existed “would frustrate the

                                          -5-
bankruptcy policy of a broad inclusion of property in the estate[.]” Whetzal, 32 F.3d
at 1304.

                                          B.

       Pitman Farms additionally argues reading subsection (1) or (7) to include
avoidance actions would cause surplusage in § 541(a). Section 541(a)(6) specifies
that proceeds from property of the estate are included in property of the estate. See
§ 541(a)(6). Additionally, other subsections of § 541(a) specify that property from
some avoidance actions are property of the estate. See § 541(a) (3) and (4).
Therefore—according to Pitman Farms—if avoidance actions are property of the
estate, the Bankruptcy Code would not have to specify the proceeds of such actions
are property of the estate.

       The “canon against surplusage is not an absolute rule[.]” Marx v. Gen.
Revenue Corp., 568 U.S 371, 385 (2013). It is not unreasonable that Congress would
repeat itself in order to ensure the results it intended were followed. Conn. Nat’l
Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253 (1992) (“Redundancies across statutes are not
unusual events in drafting, and so long as there is no ‘positive repugnancy’ between
two laws, a court must give effect to both.” (citation omitted)). Such redundancies
are particularly likely when, like in this case, the statute was edited over time to add
specificity. See In re Harris, 886 F.2d 1011, 1014 n.5 (8th Cir. 1989) (noting
subsection (3) was “amended in 1984 to provide expressly for the return of excessive
attorney’s fees to the estate”). Given the drafting history and the complex nature of
the Bankruptcy Code, the possibility of our interpretation creating surplusage does
not alter our conclusion that avoidance actions are part of the estate under the plain
language of § 541(a).

       Finally, Pitman Farms argues allowing the sale of avoidance actions would
violate the trustee’s fiduciary duty or undermine the purpose of avoidance actions.
The trustee’s fiduciary duty is to “maximize the value of the estate.” Commodity
Futures Trading Comm’n v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343, 352 (1985). When an estate
                                          -6-
cannot afford to pursue avoidance actions, the best way to maximize the value of the
estate is to sell the actions. Our interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code—in a way
that allows the Trustee to sell avoidance actions—is consistent with the
congressional intent behind including a fiduciary duty to maximize the value of the
estate.3

                                          III.

       Even if there were any ambiguity in the statutory language we are persuaded
by the consensus of courts across the country: avoidance actions are property of the
estate. Pitman Farms points to no cases, and we find no case, where a court has
denied a motion to sell after finding avoidance actions were not part of the estate.
To the contrary, many courts have addressed this issue, or related issues, and
concluded avoidance actions are property of the estate. See e.g., In re Moore, 608
F.3d 253, 262 (5th Cir. 2010) (“We conclude, therefore, that the fraudulent-transfer
claims are property of the estate under §541(a)(1) . . . . In the alternative, the
fraudulent-transfer claims became estate property under § 544(b) and—like other
estate property—may be sold pursuant to § 363(b).” (citation omitted)); In re Ontos,
Inc., 478 F.3d 427, 431 (1st Cir. 2007) (“It is well established that a claim for
fraudulent conveyance is included within [11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)]” (citation
omitted)); Nat’l Tax Credit Partners, L.P. v. Havlik, 20 F.3d 705, 708–09 (7th Cir.
1994) (“[T]he right to recoup a fraudulent conveyance, which outside of bankruptcy
may be invoked by a creditor, is property of the estate that only a trustee or debtor
in possession may pursue once a bankruptcy is under way.”). See also In re Murray
Metallurgical Coal Holdings, LLC, 623 B.R. 444, 518 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2021)
(“The Court concludes that the Oak Grove Avoidance Actions and their proceeds
are property of the estate that may be sold.”).

      3
         Pitman Farms raises a purely legal issue as to whether avoidance actions are
property of the estate. It has not challenged the bankruptcy court’s finding that the
sale is in the best interest of the estate and that ARKK’s offer is fair and reasonable.
                                          -7-
       The case most contrary to this conclusion is In re Cybergenics Corp., 226 F.3d
237, 245 (3d Cir. 2000). Cybergenics held avoidance actions are not “assets” of the
debtor. Id. But Cybergenics did not decide whether such actions are “property” of
the estate. Id. at 246. The opinion stressed “‘Cybergenics’ assets’ and ‘property of
the estate’ have different meanings, evidenced in part by the numerous provisions in
the Bankruptcy Code that distinguish between property of the estate and property of
the debtor, or refer to one but not the other.” Id. In any event, the value of
Cybergenics in the present setting is undercut by a subsequent Third Circuit opinion
which stressed “Cybergenics does not hold that trustees cannot transfer causes of
action.” In re Wilton Armetale, Inc., 968 F.3d 273, 285 (3d Cir. 2020).

      Accordingly, we agree with the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Chapter 5
avoidance actions are property of the estate and affirm the order approving the
Trustee’s motion to sell property of the estate.
                       ______________________________

                                         -8-