United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
David
J. Hale, Judge United States District Court.
Plaintiff
Huntington National Bank filed this action as trustee to
recover debts owed on bonds issued by Defendant Saint
Catharine College, Inc. (Docket No. 1) Upon Huntington's
unopposed motion, the Court appointed LS Associates, LLC as
receiver to manage, maintain, preserve, and repair Saint
Catharine's remaining assets. (D.N. 12) The Court also
instituted a receivership stay on litigation against Saint
Catharine. (Id., PageID # 289) Nonparties Becky Lee
Meadows, Scott Scheerhorn, Robert Akin, and Robert Hutchins
have moved to lift the receivership stay so that they may
file a putative class action against Saint Catharine. (D.N.
78) Nonparty Ellis Towing, LLC also asks the Court to lift
the stay to allow it to initiate litigation against Saint
Catharine. (D.N. 80) Additionally, Receiver LS Associates has
moved to reduce funds held in a Student Refund Account for
the purpose of paying receivership expenses. (D.N. 97) LS
Associates has also filed an expedited motion for an order
approving procedures in connection with the proposed sale of
Saint Catharine's remaining assets. (D.N. 101)
Intervening party Farmers National Bank opposes LS
Associates' motions on a number of grounds. (See
D.N. 98; D.N. 107)
For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will partially grant the
motion by Meadows, Scheerhorn, Akin, and Hutchins to lift the
receivership stay. These nonparties may proceed with their
putative class action, but only after the proposed sale of
Saint Catharine's remaining assets is complete.
Additionally, the Court will grant Ellis Towing's motion
to lift the receivership stay, LS Associates' motion to
reduce funds held in the Student Refund Account, and LS
Associates' motion for an order approving the proposed
sale procedures.
I.
Background
Between
2004 and 2014, Saint Catharine issued a series of notes and
other financial documents to collateralize its repayment
obligations under its previously issued bonds. (D.N. 1,
PageID # 3-4) In connection with the loan documents,
Huntington, as trustee, was granted a mortgage and perfected
security interest in Saint Catharine's real estate and
the fixtures associated with the real estate. (Id.,
PageID # 5) With financial difficulties mounting, Saint
Catharine announced in June 2016 that it intended to
discontinue its business operations effective July 31, 2016.
(Id., PageID # 6) Huntington then brought the
present action, alleging that, by announcing its intent to
discontinue its business, Saint Catharine had defaulted on
its obligations under the loan documents. (Id.,
PageID # 6-8)
Pursuant
to the loan documents, Huntington was entitled to have a
receiver appointed upon the filing of any action for money
due under the bonds. (D.N. 4-1, PageID # 196) Accordingly,
the Court appointed LS Associates as receiver to manage,
maintain, preserve, and repair Saint Catharine's
remaining assets. (D.N. 12) The Court also instituted a
receivership stay, mandating that “[n]o individual or
entity may sue [Saint Catharine] without first obtaining the
permission of this Court.” (Id., PageID # 289)
The Court thereafter granted LS Associates' unopposed
motion to establish a Student Refund Account to handle
student refund claims filed against Saint Catharine. (D.N.
17; D.N. 19)
In the
meantime, Farmers National Bank sought to intervene in the
dispute in light of an outstanding $1.5 million promissory
note executed by Saint Catharine and delivered to FNB.
(See D.N. 8, PageID # 235-36) Pursuant to a
stipulation by the parties, the Court granted FNB's
motion to intervene. (See D.N. 20; D.N. 21) Around
the same time, LS Associates and Huntington filed a number of
joint motions requesting approval to sell certain personal
property of Saint Catharine's at auction. (D.N. 26; D.N.
27; D.N. 32) The Court granted these motions. (D.N. 45; D.N.
68) Consequently, Saint Catharine's only remaining
significant asset is its former campus. (See D.N.
104)
On
March 28, 2017, nonparties Meadows, Scheerhorn, Akin, and
Hutchins moved for an order lifting the receivership stay to
allow them to proceed with a putative class action against
Saint Catharine. (D.N. 78) Huntington and LS Associates have
filed a joint response opposing this motion. (D.N. 88) On
April 7, 2017, nonparty Ellis Towing, LLC likewise moved for
an order granting it permission to proceed with litigation
against Saint Catharine in a Kentucky state-court action.
(D.N. 80) Saint Catharine initially opposed this motion (D.N.
84), but the parties have since stipulated that Ellis may
proceed in the state-court action for apportionment purposes
only. (D.N. 86)
On
September 28, 2017, LS Associates moved for an order
authorizing it to reduce the funds held in the Student Refund
Account to $50, 000. (D.N. 97) In response, FNB stated a
general objection “to the continued use of unencumbered
funds for receivership activities solely or substantially for
the benefit of [Huntington] and its bond holders, to the
detriment of all other creditors.” (D.N. 98, PageID #
1375) On November 2, 2017, LS Associates also moved for an
order approving certain procedures to be employed in
connection with a proposed sale of Saint Catharine's real
estate and other remaining assets. (D.N. 101) FNB opposes
this motion on a number of grounds. (D.N. 107) The United
States, as an intervening interested party, initially opposed
the motion, citing an interest it allegedly has in a building
within Saint Catharine's campus. (D.N. 106) LS Associates
has since filed a revised proposed sale-procedures order, in
which it addresses some of the issues raised by FNB and the
United States. (D.N. 110-1) Indeed, LS Associates alleges
that the United States now agrees with the proposed order.
(See D.N. 110)
II.
Discussion
A.
LS Associates' Motion to Reduce Funds Held in the Student
Refund Account
LS
Associates moves for permission to reduce the funds held in
the Student Refund Account to $50, 000 and use the remaining
balance of approximately $223, 000 for receivership expenses.
(D.N. 97) In support of its motion, LS Associates notes that
since the Court's August 20, 2016 Order establishing the
Student Refund Account, only $47, 456.41 has been paid out to
student refund claims. (Id., PageID # 1368) The last
such student refund claim was filed in November 2016.
(Id.) Given the figures cited by LS Associates, the
Court finds LS Associates' request and proposed
resolution reasonable. FNB's general objection to the
contrary is misplaced. FNB is correct that the vast majority
of receivership expenses to date have been related to the
preservation and attempted liquidation of Saint
Catharine's campus. (See D.N. 99-1, PageID #
1388) FNB is also correct that preservation of the campus
will largely benefit Huntington and Saint Catharine's
bondholders alone, as the value of the property is likely
less than the $24 million owed to bondholders. (See
D.N. 98, PageID # 1376) At the hearing on this matter,
however, FNB did not present a reasonable alternative
approach that LS Associates could take that might result in a
better return on Saint Catharine's remaining assets-one
of the primary purposes of the receivership itself.
(See D.N. 109)
Furthermore,
even if FNB could present a reasonable alternative approach,
prior orders from this Court grant LS Associates the power to
reduce the Student Refund Account even without Court
approval. The Court's Order establishing the Student
Refund Account grants LS Associates the right “to
withdraw funds in excess of the Reserve for purposes of
paying expenses of this Receivership pursuant to the terms of
the Receivership Order” upon receipt of approval by the
Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education. (D.N. 19, PageID
# 375) LS Associates has received such approval. (D.N. 97,
PageID # 1367) In addition, the Court's Order
establishing the receivership states that “[t]he
Receiver's compensation and receivership expenses and
professional fees . . . shall be paid first from
available cash and/or revenue.”[1](D.N. 12, PageID # 288
(emphasis added)) Accordingly, the Court will grant LS
Associates' motion to reduce funds held in the Student
Refund Account.
B.
LS Associates' Proposed Sale-Procedures Order
LS
Associates also moves for approval of a sale-procedures order
in connection with a proposed sale of Saint Catharine's
real estate and other remaining assets. Specifically, LS
Associates seeks an order (i) approving sale procedures and
bidding protections to be employed in connection with the
proposed sale; (ii) scheduling an auction and a hearing to
consider approval of the sale; (iii) approving the proposed
notice of the dates, times, and places for the auction and
the sale hearing; (iv) approving the proposed asset purchase
agreement with the stalking-horse purchaser; (v) authorizing
the sale of additional assets; (vi) authorizing the
assumption and assignment of certain executor contracts and
unexpired leases in connection with the sale; and (vii)
authorizing LS Associates to consummate all transactions
related to the above-listed procedures. (D.N. 101, PageID #
1404-05) The following facts are relevant to resolution of
this pending motion.
Since
its appointment as receiver, LS Associates has taken a number
of steps to liquidate Saint Catharine's remaining assets.
(D.N. 101, PageID # 1406-07) At this time, Saint
Catharine's only significant remaining non-cash assets
are its real estate and potential causes of action.
(Id., PageID # 1407) In order to maximize the value
achieved on the real estate, LS Associates retained CBRE,
Inc. as an exclusive agent to list and market the campus
portion of Saint Catharine's real estate. (Id.)
“After extensive marketing by CBRE, communication with
numerous potential interested parties, numerous site visits
and negotiations, ” LS Associates executed a letter of
intent with a potential purchaser for the purchase of
substantially all of Saint Catharine's remaining assets.
(Id.) The negotiations resulted in an Agreement for
Purchase and Sale of Assets (the “APA”).
(See D.N. 101-3) The APA essentially treats the
potential purchaser as a stalking-horse bidder. The APA is
thus subject to the bidding period, auction, and sale hearing
outlined in LS Associates' proposed order. (D.N. 101,
PageID # 1407-08) If the stalking-horse purchaser is not
overbid and the APA is otherwise approved by this Court,
however, the purchaser is contractually committed to
purchasing the assets at issue for $4.7 million.
(Id., PageID # 1407)
The
proposed order therefore establishes a nuanced sale procedure
for the remainder of Saint Catharine's assets. It would
establish rules for the submission and consideration of
competing bids; schedule an auction, if needed; and schedule
a sale hearing in this Court, at which LS Associates would
ask the Court to enter an order authorizing LS Associates to
close the transaction with the highest bidder. (See
id.)
FNB
objects to the proposed sale-procedures order on several
grounds. (D.N. 107) Specifically, FNB argues: (i) the
proposed sale is not a “public sale” under 28
U.S.C. §§ 2001 and 2004, nor does it comply with
the statutory requirements of a “private sale”;
(ii) the proposed timeframe for qualifying bids following
entry of the proposed order is unreasonably narrow; and (iii)
the proposed sale does not allocate the purchase price among
Saint Catharine's remaining unencumbered assets.
(Id.) The United States also filed an objection to
the sale-procedures order, citing an interest it has in a
building within Saint Catharine's real estate. (D.N. 106)
LS
Associates has addressed most of these objections in its
revised sale-procedures order. (See D.N. 110-1) It
has extended the timeframe for submitting competing bids from
21 days to 45 days after the entry of the proposed order.
(Id., PageID # 1583) LS Associates also changed the
proposed order's language to require publication of an
abbreviated version of the Sale Notice in the
Courier-Journal and Springfield Sun once
...