Create an Account or Login to Existing Account
7-Day Free Trial
HTML Document View
Full title: Omnibus Objection to Claim Duplicate Claims with Notice thereof, (30 Day Objection Language) Filed by David W. Parham for Debtor First River Energy, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Duplicate Claims # 2 Exhibit B - Proposed Order # 3 Appendix Service List) (Parham, David)
Document posted on Jul 19, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 5 pages and 0 tables.
Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)
Upon examining the proofs of claim identified on Exhibit A, Donlin, Recano & Company, Inc. has determined that each such claim is duplicative of other claims filed in this Chapter 11 Case (collectively the “Duplicate Claims”).The Debtor has identified seventy-five (75) Proofs of Claim that are duplicates of other claims filed in this Chapter 11 Case (the “Duplicate Claims”).(c) Date such Duplicate Claim was Filed; (d) Asserted Amount of Duplicate Claim; and (e) current Class of Claim.As set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 3001(f), a properly executed and filed proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and the amount of the claim under section 502(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.In addition, the Debtor reserves the right to seek further reduction of any Claim for any reason including to the extent such Claim has been paid, and further reserves the right to raise further objections, including objections under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.
List of Tables
Document ContentsIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION In re: § § Chapter 11 FIRST RIVER ENERGY, LLC,1 § § Bankruptcy Case No. 18-50085 Debtor. § § DEBTOR’S FIRST OMNIBUS OBJECTION TO DUPLICATIVE CLAIMS THIS PLEADING REQUESTS RELIEF THAT MAY BE ADVERSE TO YOUR INTERESTS. IF NO TIMELY RESPONSE IS FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE, THE RELIEF REQUESTED HEREIN MAY BE GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING BEING HELD. A TIMELY FILED RESPONSE IS NECESSARY FOR A HEARING TO BE HELD. Debtor, First River Energy, LLC, as debtor and debtor in possession (the “Debtor”), in accordance with Rule 3007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedures and Rule 3007 of the Local Bankruptcy Rules of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas (“Local Rules”) hereby submits its omnibus objection (“Objection”) to Duplicate Claims (as defined below). In support of the Objection, the Debtor respectfully represents: Background 1. On January 12, 2018, (the “Petition Date”), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). The 1 The Debtor in this chapter 11 case, along with the last four digits of the Debtor’s federal tax identification number, is: First River Energy, LLC (9656). The mailing address for the Debtor, solely for purposes of notices and communications, is P.O. Box 1718, Livingston, TX 77351.
1Debtor is authorized to continue to operate its businesses and manage its properties as debtor in possession pursuant to sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. 2. Donlin, Recano & Company, Inc., the Claims and Noticing Agent in this Chapter 11 Case, has gone through the official claims register and determined that certain of the claims identified on Exhibit A (collectively, the “Duplicate Claims”) are duplicative. The Debtor seeks that the Duplicate Claims should be disallowed and expunged. Jurisdiction 3. This Court has jurisdiction over this Objection under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Venue of these cases and this Objection in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding with the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Relief Requested 4. Upon examining the proofs of claim identified on Exhibit A, Donlin, Recano & Company, Inc. has determined that each such claim is duplicative of other claims filed in this Chapter 11 Case (collectively the “Duplicate Claims”). As such the Duplicate Claims must be disallowed and expunged in their entirety. 5. Accordingly, the Debtor seeks entry of an order disallowing and expunging in their entirety the claims listed on Exhibit A. Basis for Relief Requested 6. The Debtor has identified seventy-five (75) Proofs of Claim that are duplicates of other claims filed in this Chapter 11 Case (the “Duplicate Claims”). None of the proofs of claims contain any information or documentation supporting why the same claim should be allowed in its entirety twice. The elimination of redundant claims will enable the Debtor to maintain a claim register that more accurately reflects the claims that have been asserted in this
2Chapter 11 Case. The Debtor thus objects to the Duplicate Claims identified on Exhibit A and request that such claims be disallowed and expunged. 7. Set forth on Exhibit A are the Duplicate Claims that the Debtor has identified to date. Exhibit A contains the following information for each Duplicate Claim: (a) name and address of Claimant; (b) Claim Number of Duplicate Claim; (c) Date such Duplicate Claim was Filed; (d) Asserted Amount of Duplicate Claim; and (e) current Class of Claim. 8. Disallowing and expunging the Duplicate Claims will prevent Claimants from receiving multiple recoveries for a single claim. Accordingly, the Debtor respectfully requests that the Duplicate Claims set forth on Exhibit A be disallowed and expunged from the Debtor’s claims register for all purposes pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3007(d)(1). 9. Section 502(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that “[a] claim of interest, proof of which is filed under section 501 of this title, is deemed allowed, unless a party in interest…objects.” 11 U.S.C. § 502(a). A chapter 11 debtor has the duty to object to the allowance of any claim that is improper. 11 U.S.C. §§ 704(a)(5), 1106(a)(1) and 1107(a); see also Int’l Yacht & Tennis, Inc. & Wasserman Tennis, Inc. (In re Int’l Yacht & Tennis, Inc.) 922 F.2d 659, 661-62 (11th Cir. 1991). 10. As set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 3001(f), a properly executed and filed proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and the amount of the claim under section 502(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. See In re O’Connor, 153 F. 3d 258, 260 (5th Cir. 1998). To receive the benefit of prima facie validity, however, it is elemental that a proof of claim must assert facts of allegation which would entitle the claimant to a recovery. Additionally, a claimant’s proof of claim is entitled to the presumption of prima facie validity under Bankruptcy Rule 3001(f) only until an objecting party refutes at least one of the allegations that is essential to
3the claim’s legal sufficiency. In re Starnes, 231 B.R. 903, 912 (N.D. Tex. 1998). Once such an allegation is refuted, “then the party asserting the claim bears the burden of proof and must establish the validity of its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” In re 804 Congress, L.L.C., 529 B.R. 213, 219 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2015); see also Cavu/Rock Props. Project I, L.L.C. v. Gold Star Constr., Inc. (In re Cavu/Rock Props Project I, L.L.C.), 516 B.R. 414, 422 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2014) “The ultimate burden of proof always lies with the claimant.” In re Armstrong, 347 B.R. 581, 583 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2006). 11. As stated above, the Debtor has demonstrated in this Objection that there is sufficient justification for the Duplicate Claims to be disallowed and expunged in their entirety. The Debtor respectfully submits that disallowing and expunging the Duplicate Claims will prevent Claimants from receiving multiple recoveries for a single claim. Separate Contested Matter 12. To the extent that a response is filed regarding any Duplicate Claim and the Debtor is unable to resolve any such response, each such Duplicate Claim, will constitute a separate contested matter as contemplated by Bankruptcy Rule 9014. Further, the Debtor requests that any order entered by the Court regarding an objection or other reply asserted in response to this Objection be deemed a separate order with respect to each proof of claim. Reservation of Rights 13. The Debtor expressly reserves the right to amend, modify or supplement this Objection and to file additional substantive or non-substantive objections to the Duplicate Claims objected to herein, or any other Claims (filed or not), including without limitation, the remaining claim, which may be asserted against the Debtor. Should one or more of the grounds stated in this Objection be overruled, the Debtor reserves its rights to object on other stated grounds or on any other grounds that the Debtor discovers. In addition, the Debtor reserves the right to seek
4further reduction of any Claim for any reason including to the extent such Claim has been paid, and further reserves the right to raise further objections, including objections under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. WHEREFORE, the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court enter an order substantially similar to the form attached as Exhibit B granting (i) the relief requested herein and (ii) such other and further relief as it deems just and proper. Dated: July 20, 2021 Respectfully submitted, /s/ David W. Parham David W. Parham, SBN: 15459500 Esther McKean, SBN: 24122145 AKERMAN LLP 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone:(214) 720-4300 Facsimile: (214) 981-9339 firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com COUNSEL FOR DEBTOR AND DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on July 20, 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served electronically by the Court’s PACER system to all parties receiving such notices. Furthermore, I directed Donlin Recano, the Debtor’s Noticing Agent, to serve the foregoing document via first class, on the parties named on the notice list attached hereto and on those claimants and addresses listed on Exhibit A. /s/ David W. Parham David W. Parham