INSIGHT TERMINAL SOLUTIONS, LLC v. CECELIA FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; OASIS AVIATION LLC; HALAS ENERGY, LLC; JOHN J. SIEGEL, JR., BAY BRIDGE EXPORTS, LLC - Articles

All Content

INSIGHT TERMINAL SOLUTIONS, LLC v. CECELIA FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; OASIS AVIATION LLC; HALAS ENERGY, LLC; JOHN J. SIEGEL, JR., BAY BRIDGE EXPORTS, LLC

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Feb 28, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Michael A. Kaplan, LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Roger G. Jones, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Michael A. Kaplan, Robert M. Hirsh, Rasmeet K. Chahil, LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Roger G. Jones, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Judge(s): CROOM, DALES, and GUSTAFSON, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville

SCOTT W. DALES, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. Had the principal witness in this matter survived his deposition long enough to submit to cross-examination, the adversary proceeding to disallow or recharacterize the claim at issue may have turned out differently. The key witness, however, did not survive long enough to complete his direct examination, let alone submit to cross-examination. So, in an unremarkable exercise of its discretion under the rules, the Bankruptcy Court declined to admit his incomplete testimony. Such are the risks of litigation.

Consequently, after trial in the underlying adversary proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court entered judgment allowing Proof of Claim No. 1 originally filed by Cecelia Financial Management, LLC (the “Claim”) over the objection of chapter 11 debtor-in-possession Insight Terminal Solutions, LLC (“ITS”). The court found that ITS failed to rebut the presumption of validity and amount of the Claim that arose under Bankruptcy Rule 3001(f), rejecting ITS’s effort to disallow the Claim (1) for want of consideration, or (2) as a disguised equity contribution. ITS appealed from the judgment and, finding no reversible error, we AFFIRM.

Attachments: