Objection // Reorganized Debtors' Omnibus Objection to: (I) Brian Tuttle's (A) Confirmation Stay Motion, (B) Confirmation Reconsideration Motion, and (C) Stay Reconsideration Motion; (II) Jordan Darga's Confirmation Reconsideration Motion; and (III) Stoyan Tachev's Confirmation Reconsideration Motion (related document(s)1172, 1173, 1174, 1205, 1206) Filed by Allied Nevada Gold Corp.
Docket #1258
OMNIBUS OBJECTION 1. On October 8, 2015, this Court entered an order [Docket No. 1136] (the “Confirmation Order”) confirming the Debtors’ Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization [Docket No. 931] (the “Plan”).2 On October 22, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), the Plan was consummated, and the Reorganized Debtors filed a notice of the occurrence of the Effective Date [Docket No. 1190]. On the Effective Date, among other things, the Debtors’ then-existing common stock and debt instruments were cancelled and new debt, common stock, and warrants were issued in accordance with the terms of the Plan and the Confirmation Order.
2. The Shareholder Motions, which seek reconsideration of the Confirmation Order and/or a stay thereof, should be denied as equitably moot. Appeals from and motions to reconsider confirmation orders are equitably moot if “a confirmed plan has been substantially consummated” and if granting the relief requested will “fatally scramble the plan and/or significantly harm third parties who have justifiably relied on plan confirmation.” In re Tribune Media Co., Case Nos. 14-3332 and 14-3333, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14530 (3d Cir. Aug. 15, 2015). Because the Plan was substantially consummated on the Effective Date, the Court cannot grant the relief requested in the Shareholder Motions—reconsideration of the Confirmation Order and/or a stay thereof—without fatally scrambling the Plan. Therefore, the Shareholder Motions should be denied as equitably moot.
3. Additionally, the Confirmation Reconsideration Motions should be denied because the Shareholders have failed to satisfy the requirements for reconsideration. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only sparingly. See HHCA Texas Health Servs., L.P. v. LHS Holdings, Inc., 268 B.R. 74, 76 (Bankr. D. Del. 2001) (holding that a movant seeking reconsideration “must do more than simply reargue the facts of the case or legal underpinnings.”). In order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration under Rule 9023 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure,3 the movant must show “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion . . . .; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” In re W.R. Grace & Co., 398 B.R. 368, 372 (D. Del. 2008) (quoting Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). The Confirmation Reconsideration Motions do not purport to demonstrate any of the prerequisites for reconsideration. Specifically, the Confirmation Reconsideration Motions fail to assert that (i) there has been an intervening change in the controlling law since the Court entered the Confirmation Order,(ii) new evidence has come to light since the Court entered the Confirmation Order, (iii) there was any clear error or law or fact in the Confirmation Order, or (iv) entry of the Confirmation Order was a manifest injustice necessitating rehearing. Rather, the Confirmation Reconsideration Motions merely recycle the same unsubstantiated (and patently false) allegations and accusations that have already been considered by the Court at multiple evidentiary hearings4 and duly rejected. See Darga Confirmation Reconsideration Motion at ¶¶ 2-3; Tachev Confirmation Reconsideration Motion at ¶ 3; Tuttle Confirmation Reconsideration Motion at ¶ 1. Accordingly, the Confirmation Reconsideration Motions should be denied as a matter of law for failure to satisfy the legal requirements for reconsideration.
The only breaks you get in life...are those you give yourself!!!
