Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,343 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Federal Case Categories







Bankruptcy Order Not Final for Appeal

Bailey v. Connolly, Case No. 09-1171 (C.A. 10, Jan. 22, 2010)

The issue in this appeal is whether a bankruptcy court order directing the appellant, Douglas Bailey, to sign a prepared, sworn statement is a final, appealable order for purposes of appellate review by the district court. We conclude that it is not and, because the district court’s order did not cure that nonfinality, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Ricky Donovan Van Vleet, d/b/a First Financial Centre, Inc. (Van Vleet), filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. Among Van Vleet’s assets were a number of business entities, including Kikula Island Resorts Limited (KIR) and Encom Services Limited (Encom), located in the Republic of Vanuatu, an island-nation in the South Pacific Ocean. Appellant Bailey was Van Vleet’s business associate and one of his creditors. He filed a proof of claim against the bankruptcy estate for $4.06 million in wages owed for his work for KIR.

The bankruptcy court vested broad authority in the Chapter 11 trustee, the appellee here (Trustee), over the bankruptcy estate’s Vanuatu assets, including the power to elect, appoint, and remove the directors and managers of the business entities, and to settle the appeal of a Vanuatu lawsuit that had resulted in a multi-million-dollar judgment in favor of KIR and Bailey against the Vanuatu government (the KIR lawsuit). After removing Van Vleet and Bailey as directors and officers of all the estate’s Vanuatu entities, the Trustee allegedly encountered interference by them and filed a motion to hold them in contempt (Contempt Motion). In the motion, the Trustee claimed, among other things, that at Van Vleet’s direction, Bailey had written letters to the Vanuatu Financial Services Commission repudiating the Trustee’s removal of Van Vleet and Bailey as directors of the Vanuatu entities, and that Bailey had hired Vanuatu counsel to send a letter to the Vanuatu Attorney General disclaiming the Trustee’s authority to settle the KIR lawsuit. The Trustee further asserted that Sean Griffin, an Encom employee whom the Trustee had discharged, claimed to be an Encom shareholder with authority to act on behalf of its directors, sent a letter to the Trustee’s counsel demanding payment of Encom invoices, and had seized two KIR boats. The court set an evidentiary hearing on the Contempt Motion for February 20, 2008, and ordered Bailey, who was then in Vanuatu, to appear in person. On February 5, the Trustee noticed a deposition of Bailey for February 13.
 

 

Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Related Categories: Civil Procedure
 
Circuit Court Judge(s)
Stephen Anderson
David Ebel
Deanell Tacha

 
Appellant Lawyer(s) Appellant Law Firm(s)
Garry R. Appel Appel & Lucas, P.C.
James P. Eckels Appel & Lucas, P.C.
Douglas W. Jessop Jessop & Company

 
Debtor Lawyer(s) Debtor Law Firm(s)
Lee M. Kutner Kutner Miller Brinen

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
so we cannot say that the matter has ripened into appealability. moreover, the -5- the republic of vanuatu, an island-nation in the south pacific ocean. appellant although the sworn statement order does not explicitly reference 105(a), be deferred until final judgment has been entered.'" mohawk indus., inc. v. judges. to determine finality, "we separately consider the finality of each send a letter to the vanuatu attorney general disclaiming the trustee's authority demanded a hearing on the motion. encom assets, that his possession of any such assets was improper, and that he kaskey, 68 f.3d 828 (3d cir. 1995), in support of its conclusion that the sworn eddleman v. u. s. dep't of labor, 923 f.2d 782, 784-85 (10th cir. 1991), therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. this order and judgment is voluntariness be made prior to the admission of the confession to the jury" cannot, depend on a party's agility in so characterizing the right asserted." id. belongs. as long as the class of claims, taken as a whole, can be bailey was represented by counsel at these hearings, but he did not personally filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. the issue in this appeal is whether a bankruptcy court order directing the entered for the court issued under 105(a). statute or our constitution, "irretrievable loss can hardly be trivial, and the and that noncompliance with the order could be used to impeach him in later beneficial industrial loan corp., 337 u.s. 541 (1949); and because it is a supreme court has repeatedly stressed that appeal under cohen "must `never be support a criminal complaint against sean griffin and to curtail griffin's interference with administration of the bankruptcy estate's vanuatu assets. the cases must await conviction before they are appealable. see abney v. united cohen, an exception to the general rule that constitutional claims in criminal district court's rulings are currently pending in this court. criminal proceedings, "[t]he correctness of a trial court's rejection even of a bankruptcy court," namely, "the trustee's motion to compel bailey to sign the (emphasis added)). this aspect of criminal appellate procedure leads us to the the trustee to proceed by an adversary proceeding rather than by motion, fails to to settle the kir lawsuit. the trustee further asserted that sean griffin, an be considered final, see solidus networks, inc. v. excel innovations, inc. (in re add little support for a different conclusion. motion). in the motion, the trustee claimed, among other things, that at van griffin, whom bailey allegedly controlled or conspired with; and (b) it violates notarized letters, and awarded the trustee attorney fees and costs related to the they command a particular action and are issued under 105(a). accordingly, "irretrievably lost." but "almost every pretrial or trial order might be called -12- (d. colo.) and collateral estoppel. it may be cited, however, for its persuasive value granting the motion (the sworn statement order). bailey then acquired new to "issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry issue remained regarding the trustee's motion and no further proceedings were regarding encom, and that he continued to seize encom assets and tell other in making this determination, we do not engage in an individualized should return any such assets. the trustee planned to use bailey's sworn the category of cases in the meantime, proceedings on the contempt motion continued in the february 13. the court held him in civil contempt, levied a $1,000 daily sanction against him case--that is, who owned which of the vanuatu assets and how each would be statement order was not an appealable injunction because it did not grant # 1550. before tacha, anderson, and ebel, circuit judges. his motion to vacate it as the orders appealed, his briefs at both appellate levels ricky donovan van vleet, d/b/a first financial centre, inc. (van vleet), final, and the district court's order does not cure that nonfinality, we must dismiss particular adversary proceeding or discrete controversy pursued within the meet the level of importance required under cohen. deferring review of these -17- there appears to be no debate that the bankruptcy court relied on its authority that fall within the collateral-order doctrine "comprises only those . . . decisions advanced. bailey then filed this appeal. `some particular value of a high order.'" mohawk indus., inc., 130 s. ct. at 605 mohawk indus., inc., 130 s. ct. at 605 (quotations omitted). a ruling that "may united states court of appeals it--the order "finally and completely resolved the discrete dispute before the the hearing, as ordered, but he was represented by counsel. the court found that on february 5, the trustee noticed a deposition of bailey for interlocutory bankruptcy court decisions "with leave of the court." bailey has not criminal conduct and his link to it, and the speculative nature of the possibility that are [1] conclusive, [2] that resolve important questions completely separate (quoting will, 546 u.s. at 352-53). -4- bailey the next day, that he later threatened the trustee's vanuatu attorney that same day, the bankruptcy court denied bailey's motion to vacate the de novo standard." weston v. mann (in re weston), 18 f.3d 860, 862 (10th cir. not "imperil[] the interest as to justify the cost of allowing immediate appeal of many respects. it would be so anomalous, so inconsistent to allow people that he was in charge of encom. person.1 under 28 u.s.c. 158(a), and then to the appropriate circuit court under warrant, or has had his passport seized. to date, the trustee has not initiated "we review the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under a the cost of allowing immediate appeal of the entire class of relevant orders." id. wrongfully seize encom assets adverse to the estate. when bailey again failed to conclusion that the district court lacked jurisdiction under the theories bailey has 10 was reporting the crime. the trustee also testified that griffin was seen with of review under cohen. see mohawk indus., inc., 130 s. ct. at 605 (stating that under 28 u.s.c. 1291. however, we conclude that this leniency has no effect the trustee held not less than a 90% interest in encom and controlled its board of appellant, douglas bailey, to sign a prepared, sworn statement is a final, and permitted appeal under 158(a)(3), so we do not consider whether the district opening br. at 16-17. the trustee responds that the sworn statement order is district court erred in comparing the sworn statement order to an unappealable bill of particulars, the trustee described bailey's failure to transfer stock held in the court as the trustee tries to reorganize the debtor." counsel and moved to vacate the sworn statement order, arguing that the and that he disagreed with many of the factual statements and legal conclusions question, whether a right is adequately vindicable or effectively reviewable, notarized letters, but he had further interfered with administration of the estate's of bailey's attorney, bailey refused to sign documents relating to the trustee's appealable order, which we address in order of analytical convenience: as a final as these cases make clear, aside from the interest in giving expeditious appellate [sworn] statement. bailey was ordered to sign the [sworn] statement and no no. 09-1171 continuing emphasis on the doctrine's "modest scope"). nonfinality of the sworn statement order. see in re tri-valley distrib., inc., and ordered him to attend a deposition beforehand. the court advised bailey's after examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined offered to purge his contempt if he attended a deposition and another evidentiary the district court relied on caplan v. fellheimer eichen braverman & vleet's direction, bailey had written letters to the vanuatu financial services 533 f.3d at 1214-15. we therefore do not reach bailey's argument on the merits, thus, a criminal authority over the vanuatu assets, which the trustee intended to deliver to the order under 158(a)(1), see in re tri-valley distrib., inc., 533 f.3d at 1214-15, bronson v. swensen, 500 f.3d 1099, 1104 (10th cir. 2007); united states v. clerk of court that the sworn statement order should be reversed. ricky donovan van vleet, unit" because the bankruptcy court contemplated no further proceedings regarding somebody for a long period of time to thumb its nose at the court discovery order. even assuming the analogy was incorrect, it does not alter our since the sworn statement order is not a stay order or, as discussed above, a final jarvis, 499 f.3d 1196, 1201 (10th cir. 2007). treated in the bankruptcy proceeding, questions that are central to the bailey also argues that an appeal under cohen is warranted because the at 606. and "`important' in cohen's sense" means "weightier than the societal from the merits, and [3] that would render such important question effectively burden litigants in ways that are only imperfectly reparable by appellate reversal statements is not "important" enough in the cohen sense to justify an 514 u.s. 300, 303, 313 (1995). notably absent from the court's decision is any (10th cir. 1990).4 daily sanction, increased the sanction to $2,500 for each day he did not issue the arrested when he tried to attack them again at the police station while the trustee regarding the first of these points, bailey's constitutional interest in not multi-million-dollar judgment in favor of kir and bailey against the vanuatu trustee should have proceeded by an adversary proceeding rather than by motion. sworn statement order will evade review if he is never held in contempt of it, vanuatu government. the trustee also stated that while attempting to confront nonfinal because the trustee's efforts in that respect remained ongoing at the time (or have been) scheduled or held with regard to this discrete dispute." aplt. the "focus is on the entire category to which a claim belongs" (quotation to recover his $4.06 million claim against van vleet, in violation of the automatic already concluded that the sworn statement order was intended to assist in the `judicial unit'" for finality purposes is not the overall bankruptcy case but "the relief sought in a complaint. id. at 834. bailey claims that under caplan, the this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. see id. 1 encompass appeals as of right from such interlocutory orders when issued by as evident from the foregoing analysis of appealable "judicial units," the that he has forfeited any right to appeal from that order in these proceedings. see broader framework cast by the [bankruptcy] petition." adelman v. fourth nat'l the entire class of relevant orders," mohawk indus., inc., 130 s. ct. at 606, that elisabeth a. shumaker he claims is a final, appealable order in the bankruptcy context. in support, objection, and that matter was settled on appeal. the trustee is currently final. section 105(a) injunctions are not immediately appealable simply because administration of the estate, the bankruptcy court again ordered bailey to appear right to possess any of the bankruptcy estate's vanuatu assets, including those of a criminal affidavit against griffin. although bailey was not at this hearing, his included a proposed, written, sworn statement asserting, among other things, that we note that 105(a) injunctions may be appealable under 28 u.s.c. bailey appealed. furthermore, those efforts continue at this time, see supra, n.2, nonfinality, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. the issue was not completely separate from the merits of the bankruptcy notarized letters to the vanuatu government and all other interested parties dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the sworn interests advanced by the ordinary operation of final judgment principles." excel innovations, inc.), 502 f.3d 1086, 1092 (9th cir. 2007); lomas fin. corp. appear for a deposition or for the february 28 hearing on the contempt motion, inquiry. rather, our focus is on the entire category to which a claim february 20, 2008, and ordered bailey, who was then in vanuatu, to appear in in person at the evidentiary hearing on the contempt motion set for february 20, 533 f.3d 1209, 1214-15 (10th cir. 2008). if the bankruptcy court's order is not -20- 09-cv-00433-wyd, 2009 wl 3162212, at *6 (d. colo. sept. 30, 2009). in the filed contempt proceedings and the preparation of the sworn statement motion. the that the sworn statement order is not an immediately appealable "judicial unit" about his recent trip to vanuatu. the trustee stated that, contrary to the promises lack any analysis of the order denying the motion to vacate. thus we conclude appeal to this court, identified the sworn statement order and the order denying trustee's counsel demanding payment of encom invoices, and had seized two -16- jurisprudence arising in cases appealable under 1291 are equally applicable in `final decision' rule laid down by congress in [28 u.s.c.] 1291, but as a his conviction before its reconsideration by an appellate tribunal." cobbledick v. 511 u.s. at 872. "instead, the decisive consideration is whether delaying review argued before this court that the district court should have exercised its discretion unreviewable on appeal from final judgment in the underlying action." id. the appeals . . . from final judgments, orders, and decrees" entered by bankruptcy constitutional claim made by the accused in the process of prosecution must await id. (emphasis added) (citations, quotations, and alteration omitted). thus, "[t]he 2. the cohen collateral-order doctrine. the bankruptcy court's order is final and then consider the effect the district trustee's authority to settle the kir lawsuit, and by filing an action against kir background tenth circuit arguments on the merits are relevant to this inquiry. his main theme is that the refusal to sign the sworn statement order, nor has bailey moved the bankruptcy and officers of all the estate's vanuatu entities, the trustee allegedly encountered appealable order, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the affected his substantive rights, and thereby became an appealable injunction, by motion; that the order was entered without notice and an opportunity to respond; bailey categorizes the sworn encom employee whom the trustee had discharged, claimed to be an encom assoc., int'l (in re ionosphere clubs, inc.), 139 b.r. 772, 778 (s.d.n.y. 1992).9 therefore consider caplan inapposite to our analysis of the finality of injunctions app., vol. 2 at 294. motion requesting the order. the fee award was not tied to bailey's refusal to united states court of appeals digital equip., inc., 511 u.s. at 879. where such interests are grounded in law." id. (quotation and alterations omitted). consistent with fed. r. app. p. 32.1 and 10th cir. r. 32.1. -15- among van vleet's assets were a number of business entities, including kikula "has had . . . over a year and a half to work with this court in a not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, -6- violated his fifth amendment due process rights by entering the order without concluded that the proper avenue for obtaining appellate review of a 105(a) -10- principle of statutory construction that, when possible, courts should construe occurs in circumstances not present here: (1) when necessary to effect 28 u.s.c. 1292(a)(1), which provides that circuit courts have jurisdiction over provide a basis for jurisdiction under 1291. although bailey's notice of appeal to the district court, like his notice of collateral-order construction of the final judgment rule announced in cohen v. -8- that would be lost through rigorous application of the final judgment rule." january 22, 2010 second part of bailey's main theme on the merits, that the bankruptcy court examination of the other cases bailey relies on makes clear that appealability 4 johnson, 968 f.2d 1003, 1005 n.3 (10th cir. 1992); or (2) when the injunction can bankruptcy court has not held bailey in contempt or imposed sanctions for his defendant must await conviction before appealing on the ground that a confession `effectively unreviewable' in the sense that relief from error can never extend to vanuatu assets, including by filing a sworn letter with the vanuatu supreme omitted)). rather, they merely attempt to identify some interest that would be the supreme court's approach to this consideration is categorical: under 158(a)(1), as there may yet be additional rulings related to it. proceedings in the bankruptcy court. these arguments miss the mark because bailey was van vleet's business associate and one of his creditors. he filed a as to the interrelated second and third conditions of cohen, we have "the collateral order doctrine is best understood not as an exception to the orders or sanctions described above, was ever arrested pursuant to the bench statement order as a mandatory injunction akin to a permanent injunction, which bailey first relies on celotex corp. v. edwards, where the supreme court appeals from interlocutory orders issued by district courts that grant, continue, court in which he claimed to hold half of kir's shares and disclaimed the -18- court's order has on the finality or nonfinality of the bankruptcy court's order. court also issued a bench warrant for bailey's arrest and later ordered the united u.s. 863, 867 (1994) (quoting cohen, 337 u.s. at 546).5 nonappealable injunctive orders as those that do not grant or deny the ultimate adequately vindicated by other means, the chance that the litigation simply cannot be answered without a judgment about the value of the interests circuit judge finality of that order. finally, we need not resolve bailey's complaint that the contempt proceedings against bailey for failing to sign the sworn statement, and carpenter, 130 s. ct. 599, 605 (2009) (quoting digital equip. corp., 511 u.s. requirement." id. "[t]he jurisdiction of the courts of appeals should not, and directors, that griffin was no longer an encom employee, and that griffin had no tom connolly, chapter 11 violates the right against self-incrimination. see 18 u.s.c. 3731 (providing one of the painful obligations of citizenship." id. at 325; see also digital equip. of a final district court judgment . . . has never sufficed." digital equip., inc., 158(a)(3), which gives district courts jurisdiction to hear appeals from rewriting history." digital equip. corp., 511 u.s. at 872. and "if immediate attorney stated that the request was "reasonable under the circumstances." aplt. they do not place the sworn statement order into any category of cases deserving contentions until final judgment does not imperil any interests that "justify the collateral order doctrine might therefore be understood as reflecting the familiar hearing that not only had bailey failed to appear for a deposition or issue the sworn statement order should be reversed because (a) it violates his fifth modify, refuse, or dissolve injunctions. notably, 1292(a)(1) does not order and judgment* statement contains self-incriminating statements. even so, delaying review does giving him a chance to respond to the trustee's motion and by failing to require order under 28 u.s.c. 158(a)(1); as an interlocutory order under the allowed to swallow the general rule that a party is entitled to a single appeal, to commission repudiating the trustee's removal of van vleet and bailey as authorities by bailey, his vanuatu counsel, and griffin. substantive relief on any claim. in caplan, the third circuit distinguished baines (in re baines), 528 f.3d 806, 810 (10th cir. 2008). thus, "the appropriate fostered spurious claims against estate assets; and conspired with griffin to unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of trustee. the district court quoted the bankruptcy court's finding that bailey under 28 u.s.c. 158(a)(1), "district courts . . . have jurisdiction to hear excluding evidence); cf. jackson v. denno, 378 u.s. 368, 395 (1964) (stating that out the provisions of [the bankruptcy code]."8 district court's order dismissing bailey's appeal did nothing to cure the the bankruptcy court has not held bailey in contempt based on bailey's failure to expressed in the sworn statement, some of which, he claimed, "might constitute v. trustee, trustee; caused additional stock to be issued or allocated post-petition with the -9- 8 cost of allowing immediate appeal of the entire class of relevant orders." digital at 868); see also will v. hallock, 546 u.s. 345, 350 (2006) (noting the court's bailey had not appeared for his deposition and held him in civil contempt, but united states, 309 u.s. 323, 325-26 (1940). this is so because "[b]earing the statements to assist him in gaining control over the vanuatu assets and to support consideration to stay orders issued in bankruptcy cases, the dispositive on february 20, while the motion to vacate was pending, the court held the bill of particulars in further support of the contempt motion, which he did. in the evidentiary hearing on the contempt motion. bailey did not appear in person at interference by them and filed a motion to hold them in contempt (contempt more recently, the district court has upheld on appeal the bankruptcy griffin about encom, griffin's girlfriend's father-in-law attacked him and an attend. thus, in may 2008, the court again held bailey in civil contempt, order denying his motion to vacate to the district court, which in april 2009 debtor. executing the confirmed plan. in a recent post-confirmation quarterly report, he congressional intent that disputes over stay orders be quickly settled, see determine circuit court jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c. 158(d)(1). however, as injunction was through the district court in which the bankruptcy judges serves, court. the trustee also asserted that, among other things, van vleet and/or the test for finality in both crossingham trust and adelman was used to -2- incriminating himself, we will assume for the sake of discussion that the sworn administration of the estate. and delaying review of the order until the id. at *11 (quoting hr'g tr. 44-45, july 31, 2008). bailey's appeals from the applying these general principles, we conclude that the sworn statement order directing that bailey be apprehended and presented to the court. compelled testimony in violation of [the] fifth amendment," id. at 318. 3 vanuatu authorities go to the heart of the bankruptcy case--ownership, control, bailey caused business, litigation, and banking records to be withheld from the so having fled to vanuatu and being beyond reach of the court in under 105(a) in issuing that order. conclusive determination of an issue, is not satisfied for the same reasons the states, 431 u.s. 651, 659 (1977). -14- dba first financial centre, inc., kir boats. the court set an evidentiary hearing on the contempt motion for questions separate from the merits," and, "[m]ore significantly, the third cohen island resorts limited (kir) and encom services limited (encom), located in and distribution of the estate's vanuatu assets. in other words, the sworn proof of claim against the bankruptcy estate for $4.06 million in wages owed for -3- order does not meet any of the conditions of the cohen test. the first condition, "[i]t is both practical and desirable that . . . a proper determination of 7 counsel that there would be serious consequences if bailey failed to comply. the to this end, the "second [cohen] condition insists upon important order, it is not immediately appealable.10 shareholder with authority to act on behalf of its directors, sent a letter to the same order, the district court upheld a ruling by the bankruptcy court that bailey -11- comply with the sworn statement order.2 conclusion of the bankruptcy case will not result in ineffective review. bailey's appellate review were available every such time, congress's final decision rule after finding that bailey had engaged in concerted efforts to thwart statement order was not a final, appealable order under any of the theories bailey bailey argues that the sworn statement order is an appealable "judicial would end up a pretty puny one, and so the mere identification of some interest court should have done so. the bankruptcy court vested broad authority in the chapter 11 trustee, the 3. finality under 11 u.s.c. 105(a) we apply the same test to the 158(a)(1) question. court to stay enforcement of the order, each of which further supports our view -19- the bankruptcy context. the ultimate relief the trustee sought. but caplan, in relevant part, concerned corp., 511 u.s. at 876 (quoting cobbledick, 309 u.s. at 325).6 08-cv-00506-wyd, 08-cv-01645-wyd, 08-cv-01870-wyd, 08-cv-02109-wyd, because it was issued under 11 u.s.c. 105(a), which permits a bankruptcy court fulton v. mcvay, 318 b.r. 546, 548 (d. colo. 2004); shugrue v. air line pilots we further reject bailey's argument that the sworn statement order without giving him a chance to respond to the trustee's motion and because the until the entry of final judgment `would imperil a substantial public interest' or advanced in this court. 2 -7- comply with the sworn statement order and has no jurisdictional bearing on the his name as van vleet's nominee, as his previous attorney had agreed to in open intent of diluting the estate's ownership and control of its vanuatu entities; averments in the sworn statement that bailey was ordered to sign and deliver to finality under 158(d)(1) depends in part on finality of the bankruptcy court's appealable order for purposes of appellate review by the district court. we hearing the court set for february 28. the court also ordered the trustee to file a bailey advances three reasons why the sworn statement order is a final, for similar reasons, the encom and kir (the sworn statement). the court entered an order the next day until he appeared for a deposition, and directed the trustee to prepare a proposed see strong v. w. united life assurance co. (in re tri-valley distrib., inc.), mandatory injunction issued under 11 u.s.c. 105(a).3 expected to apply for a final decree on june 30, 2010. see bankr. ct. dkt. 2008, the bankruptcy court confirmed the chapter 11 plan over van vleet's 1. finality under 28 u.s.c. 158(a)(1) discomfiture and cost of a prosecution for crime even by an innocent person is v. n. trust co. (in re lomas fin. corp.), 932 f.2d 147, 150-51 (2d cir. 1991); conclusion that the constitutional interest in being free of self-incriminating requested relief should have been sought through an adversary proceeding, not by stay. accordingly, on july 25, the bankruptcy court held bailey in civil contempt bailey's remaining contention is that the sworn statement order was final overruled in part by temex energy, inc. v. underwood, wilson, berry, stein & bailey's due process rights because the bankruptcy court entered the order at a february 6 hearing on other matters, the trustee testified under oath directors of the vanuatu entities, and that bailey had hired vanuatu counsel to and yet recognize, respect, and embrace that person's participation in we take judicial notice of the following events in this case. in august aplee. response br. at 29. government (the kir lawsuit). after removing van vleet and bailey as directors appellee, of the court is astonishing." bailey v. connolly (in re van vleet), nos. 28 u.s.c. 158(d), rather than by collateral attack in a different circuit. see motion regarding a sworn statement, which he did on february 13. the motion bankruptcy judges, and there is no parallel provision in 28 u.s.c. 158. we douglas bailey, in a later-filed response to the contempt motion, bailey specifically for the tenth circuit authorities and swear under oath that griffin had no authority over any kir or stephen h. anderson at hand might be speeded, or a particular injustice averted, does not equip., inc., 511 u.s. at 879. his work for kir. * bank & trust co., n.a. of tulsa, okla. (in re durability, inc.), 893 f.2d 264, 266 class being orders resulting in potentially self-incriminating statements. in finality rule in bankruptcy cases is less stringent than the rule in civil appeals 5 the court agreed with the trustee and asked him to file an appropriate that would be `irretrievably lost' has never sufficed to meet the third cohen `practical construction' of it." digital equip. corp. v. desktop direct, inc., 511 bailey's conduct and its effect on the administration of the bankruptcy estate. only the united states with a right to appeal a decision or order suppressing or discrete dispute raised within the larger bankruptcy case." crossingham trust v. it does not appear that bailey has ever complied with any of the court's 6 not final because it was "merely a step in the overall process" of addressing estate's vanuatu assets, including letters previously sent to the vanuatu again, entered judgment against him in the sum of $147,000 based on the $1,000 accountant with a club and sword. they escaped serious injury, and the man was consideration is whether an injunction issued under 105(a) can be considered moreover, the vagueness of bailey's assertions regarding griffin's conclude that it is not and, because the district court's order did not cure that whether deferring review until final judgment so imperils the interest as to justify power to elect, appoint, and remove the directors and managers of the business bankruptcy court with three additional evidentiary hearings in early march 2008. interlocutory appeal of the sworn statement order.7 statutes (here 1291) to foster harmony with other statutory and constitutional withdrawing and disclaiming all demands, threats, and complaints regarding the continued the $1,000 daily sanction, and ordered bailey to issue appropriate in july 2008, the trustee informed the court in status reports and at a trustee's exercise of authority over the bankruptcy estate's vanuatu assets. thus, states marshal to seize his passport if he returned to the united states. sworn statement order. bailey appealed both the sworn statement order and the court's contempt orders, noting that bailey's "flagrant disregard for the authority reference to when a 105(a) injunction becomes appealable. and our on a cohen analysis, and that the finality concerns that inform cohen order does not constitute a "judicial unit." this appeal. see fed. r. app. p. 34(a)(2); 10th cir. r. 34.1(g). the case is crucial question . . . is not whether an interest is important in the abstract; it is conclusion entities, and to settle the appeal of a vanuatu lawsuit that had resulted in a trustee then suggested to the court that it order bailey to go to the vanuatu (d.c. no. 1:08-cv-00505-wyd) whether an injunction issued in a non-bankruptcy case was appealable under appellant, 1994). the order of our analysis is as follows: we must first determine whether lacked standing to object to confirmation of the chapter 11 plan proposed by the sworn statement order qualifies as an appealable injunction because it granted statement was a step in the process of administering the estate, and it was appellee here (trustee), over the bankruptcy estate's vanuatu assets, including the amendment right against self-incrimination by describing the criminal conduct of we recognize that an adverse ruling on a double jeopardy defense is, under that the sworn statement would be used in a criminal proceeding against bailey, 9 discussion having concluded that the sworn statement order was not a final, we agree with the trustee. the trustee sought the sworn statement to cooperative and supportive fashion, and he has utterly refused to do -13- virtue of the court's award of fees and costs to the trustee for preparing the


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise