Filed: Feb. 09, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1806 OFFICIAL UNSECURED CREDITORS’ COMMITTEE, Creditor - Appellant, versus PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Creditor - Appellee, HARRIET & HENDERSON YARNS, INCORPORATED, Debtor - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-917) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 9, 2006 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, WI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1806 OFFICIAL UNSECURED CREDITORS’ COMMITTEE, Creditor - Appellant, versus PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Creditor - Appellee, HARRIET & HENDERSON YARNS, INCORPORATED, Debtor - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-917) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 9, 2006 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, WIL..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1806
OFFICIAL UNSECURED CREDITORS’ COMMITTEE,
Creditor - Appellant,
versus
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION,
Creditor - Appellee,
HARRIET & HENDERSON YARNS, INCORPORATED,
Debtor - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CA-04-917)
Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 9, 2006
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David M. Grogan, David H. Conaway, David A. Matthews, SHUMAKER,
LOOP & KENDRICK, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jeffrey B. Cohen, Chief Counsel, Israel Goldowitz, Deputy Chief
Counsel, Nathaniel Rayle, Attorney, PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION, Office of the Chief Counsel, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; Tyler P. Brown, J.
R. Smith, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee
Harriet & Henderson Yarns, Inc.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the Committee)
appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s
order, which allowed the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC) to amend a prior claim and approved a settlement between
PBGC and Harriet & Henderson Yarns, Inc. (the Debtor). For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
On July 15, 2003, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for
relief pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. See 11
U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq. (West 2004). On its schedule, the Debtor
listed PBGC’s claim in the amount of $2,604,000. On February 17,
2004, PBGC filed an amended proof of claim in the amount of
$18,720,000. The Committee filed an objection to PBGC’s amended
claim, arguing that it was filed after the claims bar date. On
September 15, 2004, the Debtor and PBGC reached a settlement
agreement, under which PBGC would receive a general unsecured claim
in the amount of $10,200,000 as well as an administrative claim of
$25,000. The Committee then filed an objection to the proposed
settlement, arguing that it was neither reasonable nor in the best
interests of the Debtor’s estate.
The bankruptcy court found that PBGC’s February 17, 2004 claim
amended the original claim listed on the schedule, and was
therefore timely. The bankruptcy court also approved the
settlement, finding that it was in the best interests of the Debtor
3
and its creditors. In a June 13, 2005 order, the district court
affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order. The Committee timely
appealed, again arguing that PBGC’s amended proof of claim was
untimely and that the settlement should not be approved.
We review de novo the judgment of a district court sitting in
review of a bankruptcy court. In re Bogdan,
414 F.3d 507, 510 (4th
Cir. 2005). Specifically, we review a bankruptcy court’s factual
findings for clear error and questions of law de novo.
Id. We
review for abuse of discretion the decisions to approve a
settlement agreement, Hensley v. Alcon Labs., Inc.,
277 F.3d 535,
541 (4th Cir. 2002), and to allow an amendment to a proof of claim.
In re Davis,
936 F.2d 771, 775 (4th Cir. 1991).
We have reviewed the record, briefs, and applicable case law
on this matter. Our careful review persuades us that the rulings
of the district court were correct. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order on the reasoning of the district court. See
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Pension Benefit Guar.
Corp., No. 5:04-CV-917-BO(3) (E.D.N.C. Jun. 13, 2005). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4