I’ll continue the dialogue. My opinion, this is a manner of obscurity, a way for them to say, it’s there and it’s fully administered but not all the factors have to be presented to close the case. Just my opinion.
Bankruptcy Rule 3022, Advisory Committee Notes (1991). In re SLI, Inc., et al., 2005 WL 1668396, 44 Bank. Ct. Dec 281 (D. Del 2005). See also, In re Ginko Associates, L.P., 2009 WL 2916917 (E.D. Pa. 2009). But, these factors are but a guide in determining whether a case has been fully administered, and not all factors need to be present before a case is closed. In re Valence Technology, Inc., 2014 WL 5320632, 60 Bank Ct. Dec. 49 (W.D. Tex. 2014). See, e.g., In re Union Home & Indus., Inc., 375 B.R. 912, 917 (10th Cir. BAP 2007) (a party need not demonstrate all factors before a case is closed); In re Provident Fin. Inc., 2010 WL 6259973, at *9 (9th Cir. BAP 2010), aff’d, 2012 WL 172887 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2012) (bankruptcy courts have flexibility in determining whether a case is fully administered). A court should review each request on a case-by-case basis. In re Ginko Assoc., L.P., WL 2916917, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 2009).
50. In reviewing the Debtors’ chapter 11 cases, it is patently apparent that these cases have been “fully administered” and that they should be closed. As noted above, since the Petition Date, the Debtors and WMILT have taken all necessary steps to gather the Debtors’ assets, reconcile claims and make distributions in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Plan. Generally speaking, such actions have included, among many others, (a) engaging in significant litigation with the FDIC, the FDIC Receiver and JPMC in an effort to determine the
25
property of the Debtors’ chapter 11 estates, (b) compromising and settling such issues pursuant to the GSA, (c) participating in Bankruptcy Court-ordered mediation to resolve outstanding claims asserted by the Equity Committee, (d) confirming and consummating the Plan, (e) gathering and/or liquidating the Debtors’ assets, and (f) reconciling all remaining Claims, including litigating and resolving employee-related Claims subject to “golden parachute regulations.”
51. Applying the non-exhaustive six Advisory Committee factors, it is expressly clear that these cases have been fully administered: (a) the Confirmation Order is final; (b) all deposits, to the extent required by the Plan, have been distributed; (c) all property was transferred to the Trust on the Effective Date; (d) the Trust assumed responsibility for the reconciliation of claims and distribution of assets in the liquidating chapter 11 cases; (e) payments commenced being made pursuant to the Plan; and (f) all motions, contested matters and adversary proceedings, other than the Griffin Appeal, have been finally resolved. But, as noted above, the Adversary Committee’s “six factors” are non-exhaustive and not every factor must be satisfied in order to close a case. Indeed, most notably, courts have held that the existence of a pending matter is an insufficient reason to deny closure of a chapter 11 case as it does not necessarily mean that a case has not been “fully administered”. See In re Union Home and Indus., 375 B.R. 912, 918 (10thh Cir. BAP 2007).
