Decision Granting Petitioning Creditors' Motion for Contempt (Doc. 145) and Determining Additional Interest as a Remedy to Enforce Compliance
GUY R. HUMPHREY, Bankruptcy Judge.
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Hold Tagnetics in Indirect Contempt (doc. 145) (the "Motion"), filed by petitioning creditors Jonathan Hager, Ronald E. Earley and Kenneth W. Kayser (the "Petitioning Creditors"). For the reasons explained below, the court finds Tagnetics, Inc. ("Tagnetics") in civil contempt of this court's Order Granting in Part Tagnetics' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. 101) and Ordering Other Matters entered on October 25, 2019 (doc. 119) (the "Settlement Enforcement Order").
As a remedy for Tagnetics' contempt, the court is ordering that Tagnetics pay, in addition to the federal judgment rate of interest on all amounts owed to the Petitioning Creditors under the Settlement Enforcement Order which have already become due, an additional 5% per annum, simple interest, compounded monthly, (the "additional interest") on all sums which previously became due the Petitioning Creditors under the Settlement Enforcement Order, and on all future sums which become due to the Petitioning Creditors to the extent that those sums are not paid as due under the Settlement Enforcement Order. The purpose of that additional interest on sums that have become due and or become past-due in the future is to coerce Tagnetics' compliance with the Settlement Enforcement Order. However: 1) Tagnetics shall have 30 days from the date of the entry of the separate order to be entered to pay all sums currently due to the Petitioning Creditors under the Settlement Enforcement Order, with interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 commencing three business days following the date of entry of the Settlement Enforcement Order; 2) The additional 5% interest shall only commence to accrue 31 days from the date of the entry of this order; and 3) While all sums due under the Settlement Enforcement Order shall collect interest at the federal judgment rate of interest provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from the time they first become due until those sums are paid, the additional 5% interest shall not accumulate during the pendency of any stay pending appeal ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Procedural and Factual Background
Through the Settlement Enforcement Order, the court granted, in part, Tagnetics' motion to enforce a settlement reached between it, as the putative Chapter 7 debtor in this case, and the Petitioning Creditors who filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Tagnetics.1 The integral terms of the Settlement Enforcement Order are as follows:
• Payment Schedule
Payments Timing Earley Kayser Hager
First Within 3 business days of the entry of $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
this order
Second 12 months from entry of this order $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Third 18 months from entry of this order $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Balance Upon next liquidity event2 $96,980 $61,582 $58,144
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Total $186,980.00 $151,582.00 $148,144.00
• Excepting the payments required by [the Settlement Enforcement] Order as defining the terms of the settlement reached by the parties, the parties are mutually released from any past obligation to each other arising out of any contract or claim of any nature, including as to any salary, benefits, loans or other similar obligations owed to the Remaining Petitioning Creditors. This release shall not affect any equity interest, including shares of stock, held by the Remaining Petitioning Creditors, except that it shall release any past dividends or other monetary obligations arising of any such equity or stock ownership.
• Within 7 days after the Remaining Petitioning Creditors' receipt of the initial $30,000 payments, Tagnetics shall file with the court and serve, by email, upon on each of the Remaining Petitioning Creditors a notice of payment.
• Upon the filing with the court of the notice of payment, the court will, after a 24-hour waiting period, dismiss the Involuntary Petition against Tagnetics.
Settlement Enforcement Order at 2. Tagnetics has appealed the Settlement Enforcement Order to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the "District Court"), stating one issue on appeal: "The Bankruptcy Court erred when it held that the parties' settlement agreement did not include a release of Tagnetics' affiliates, subsidiaries, parent corporation, officers, and directors." Tagnetics sought a stay pending appeal from this court, which the court denied through an order entered on November 15, 2019 (doc. 138).3 The Petitioning Creditors filed the Motion on November 22, 2019 and the court held a telephonic hearing on the Motion on January 28, 2020 (doc. 156 & 161).
Positions of the Parties
The Petitioning Creditors assert through the Motion that Tagnetics is in contempt of the Settlement Enforcement Order in failing to pay them the sums of money due to them under the Settlement Enforcement Order, particularly the payments which were due to them within three business days after the entry of the Settlement Enforcement Order ($30,000 to each of the Petitioning Creditors).4 Tagnetics asserts that it is not in contempt because it has appealed the Settlement Enforcement Order to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the "District Court"). However, the Petitioning Creditors note that Tagnetics has not obtained a stay pending appeal and they argue that, absent obtaining a stay pending appeal, Tagnetics must comply with the terms of the Settlement Enforcement Order even though Tagnetics appealed the Settlement Enforcement Order. As a remedy for Tagnetics' alleged contempt, the Petitioning Creditors request the court to add interest on to the sums they are due under settlement agreement and to order that the payments due under the settlement agreement be expedited.
Law on Civil Contempt
"The purpose of contempt proceedings is to uphold the power of the court, and also to secure to suitors therein the rights by it awarded." Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324, 327 (1904). The contempt power is an inherent power which the federal courts "must have and exercise in protecting the due and orderly administration of justice and in maintaining the authority and dignity of the court[.]" Roadway Express v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980) (citation omitted). "Civil contempt is the power of the court to impose sanctions to coerce compliance with its orders." United States v. Tenn., 925 F.Supp. 1292, 1301 (W.D. Tenn. 1995) (citing Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 632 (1988)); Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966); Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 442 (1988)).
Contempt may be categorized as either "criminal contempt" or "civil contempt." The difference between civil contempt and criminal contempt in large part lies in the purpose of the remedy imposed by the court. A finding of criminal contempt is generally remedied through a sanction ordered by the court intended to penalize or punish the contemnor. The remedy for civil contempt, on the other hand, is intended to either compensate the aggrieved party for its damages or losses incurred as a result of the contemnor's violation of the court's order or to coerce the contemnor's compliance with the order. Ahmed v. Reiss Steamship Co. (In re Jaques), 761 F.2d 302, 305 (6th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Thus, as described by the Supreme Court: It is not the fact of punishment but rather its character and purpose, that often serve to distinguish between the two classes of cases. If it is for civil contempt the punishment is remedial, and for the benefit of the complainant. But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court. It is true that punishment by imprisonment may be remedial, as well as punitive, and many civil contempt proceedings have resulted not only in the imposition of a fine, payable to the complainant, but also in committing the defendant to prison. But imprisonment for civil contempt is ordered where the defendant has refused to do an affirmative act required by the provisions of an order which, either in form or substance, was mandatory in its character. Imprisonment in such cases is not inflicted as a punishment, but is intended to be remedial by coercing the defendant to do what he had refused to do. The decree in such cases is that the defendant stand committed unless and until he performs the affirmative act required by the court's order.
Gompers, 221 U.S. at 441-42.
In order for a court to hold a person in contempt, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the person "violated a definite and specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court's order." Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local Union #58 v. Gary's Elec. Serv. Co., 340 F.3d 373, 379 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting NLRB v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 591 (6th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted)); In re Franks, 363 B.R. 839, 843 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2006) (similar). Corporations may be held in civil contempt. See McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187 (1949); NLRB v. Aquabrom, Div. of Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1174, 1186 (6th Cir. 1988). Bankruptcy courts have the authority to find persons in civil contempt. In re Franks, 363 B.R. 839, 842 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2006); Elder-Beerman Stores Corp. v. Thomasville Furniture Indus. (In re Elder-Beerman Stores Corp.), 197 B.R. 629, 632 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1996).
As the Sixth Circuit has emphasized, "[c]ontempt is serious" and "courts must exercise the contempt sanction with caution and use `[t]he least possible power adequate to the end proposed.'" Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, 875 F.3d 795, 799 (6th Cir. 2017) (internal citation omitted). The "drastic nature of contempt sanctions" requires that the court use those powers "only in clear and urgent instances." Lucas v. Telemarketer Calling from 407 (476-5680), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151077 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2015) (quoting in part Springfield Bank v. Caserta, 10 B.R. 57, 59 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1981)).
Consistent with the mandate to use its contempt powers sparingly, a court's civil contempt authority should not be used when the movant is merely seeking to collect on a money judgment.5 Aetna Cas. & Sr. Co. v. Markarian, 114 F.3d 346, 349-50 (1st Cir. 1997); Ecopetrol S.A. v. Offshore Exploration & Prod. LLC, 172 F.Supp.3d 691, 697 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Jou v. Adalian, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13786 at *16-17 (D. Haw. Feb. 5, 2015). Rather, in those circumstances, the aggrieved party must use the tools provided under and through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 to enforce and collect upon the money judgment.
Analysis of this Case
Tagnetics has neither asserted nor argued that it has complied with the Settlement Enforcement Order. Nor has it asserted that the Settlement Enforcement Order is not clear and specific, nor that it was not aware of the Settlement Enforcement Order. Rather, it has only asserted that it has appealed the Settlement Enforcement Order and does not want to pay sums due under the settlement as found through the Settlement Enforcement Order in the event that the District Court determines that there "was no meeting of the minds" as to the settlement.6
The Settlement Enforcement Order has many attributes of being a money judgment. It is a final, appealable order and, in fact, has been appealed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a). And more importantly, it requires Tagnetics to pay definite sums of money to the Petitioning Creditors. However, due to the unique and special circumstances of this case, including the specific requirement in the parties' settlement of an initial payment as consideration for dismissal of the petition, the court's civil contempt power is the only remedy available to enforce Tagnetics' compliance with the Settlement Enforcement Order, including its obligation to pay the Petitioning Creditors the sums they are due. The collection tools provided by Rule 69 are not presently available to collect the sums due the Petitioning Creditors because the Tagnetics' bankruptcy case initiated through the involuntary bankruptcy petition remains pending, along with the stay provided by the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The automatic stay applies in all bankruptcy cases, including those commenced through the filing of an involuntary petition. In re Nicole Gas Prod. Ltd., 502 B.R. 508, 514 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2013); In re Epstein, 314 B.R. 591, 594 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2004); In re C.W. Mining Co., 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 4840 at *9 (Bankr. D. Utah Aug. 7, 2008). Thus, the Petitioning Creditors may not simply enforce their rights under the Settlement Enforcement Order through the collection mechanisms provided by Rule 69.7
An appeal of an order by itself does not stay a party's duty to comply with the court's order. A party's obligation to comply with a court order exists pending an appeal absent a stay issued by an appropriate court staying enforcement of that order. Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458-59 (1975); United States v. Fesman, 781 F.Supp. 511, 514 (S.D. Ohio 1991). Similarly, without a stay pending appeal, the trial court retains the authority to enforce the order. Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P'ship, 731 F.3d 608, 626 (6th Cir. 2013); City of Cookeville, Tenn. v. Upper Cumberland Elec. Membership Corp., 484 F.3d 380, 394 (6th Cir. 2007).
Thus, since a stay has not been issued by this court or the District Court, Tagnetics is not in compliance with the Settlement Enforcement Order, and the Settlement Enforcement Order is definite and specific and Tagnetics at all times has been aware of the Settlement Enforcement Order, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in contempt.
Since Tagnetics is in contempt of the Settlement Enforcement Order, the court is left with the issue of how to compensate the Petitioning Creditors for their damages incurred as a result of Tagnetics' contempt and how to coerce Tagnetics' compliance with the Settlement Enforcement Order. The Petitioning Creditors' damages are a loss of money — the failure to be paid the sums they are due under the Settlement Enforcement Order. The Petitioning Creditors may be adequately compensated for those damages through the interest to which they are entitled under federal law, that being the federal judgment rate of interest provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. However, in addition to compensatory damages, this court may also include in any civil contempt sanction a monetary component intended to coerce the contemnor into compliance with its order. Any such coercive component, however, must be prospective only and not retroactive. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 369-370 (1966); Jaques, 761 F.2d at 308. Accordingly, Tagnetics shall have 30 days from the date of the entry of this order to pay all past-due sums due to the Petitioning Creditors under the Settlement Enforcement Order ($30,000 to each Petitioning Creditor), with interest at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961 commencing three business days after the Settlement Enforcement Order was entered. To coerce Tagnetics' compliance with the Settlement Enforcement Order, in the event those sums are not paid to the Petitioning Creditors within 30 days of this order, the court finds that it is appropriate to add on to that federal judgment rate of interest, additional interest at the rate of 5% per annum, simple interest, compounded monthly, commencing on the 31st day following the entry of this order and continuing until all such sums are paid. In addition, interest shall accrue on all sums due under the Settlement Enforcement Order in the future at the federal judgment rate of interest, plus the 5% per annum, compounded monthly, until all such sums are paid. This additional interest shall be on all sums previously due that are not paid to the Petitioning Creditors within 30 days of the entry of separate order to be entered, plus any additional sums that become due in the future, from the time that those sums first become due under the settlement agreement as found by the court through the Settlement Enforcement Order. The additional 5% interest shall not be due or accumulate during the pendency of any stay pending appeal, from the time the stay first becomes effective until the stay terminates.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Tagnetics is in civil contempt of the Settlement Enforcement Order. Accordingly, the Petitioning Creditors' motion to hold Tagnetics in contempt is granted. A separate order will be entered consistent with this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
