HTML Document View

Full title: Motion objecting to claim(s) various claims of Various creditors listed in the 77th Omnibus Motion Objecting to Insufficient Documentation Claims filed by Trustee META Advisors LLC Gander Mountain Liquidating Trustee. An affidavit or verification, Proof of service, Proposed order. Hearing scheduled 6/9/2021 at 09:30 AM at Courtroom 7 West, 7th Floor, 300 S 4th St, Minneapolis, Judge Michael E. Ridgway. (Sigler, Molly) (Entered: 04/29/2021)

Document posted on Apr 28, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 16 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

Trust (“Liquidating Trust”) and META Advisors LLC, in its capacity as the liquidating trustee (“Liquidating Trustee”) of the Liquidating Trust, by and through its undersigned counsel, moves the Court (“Motion”) for the relief requested below and entry of an order substantially in the form submitted herewith (“Proposed Order”), holding certain improperly filed proof of claims for which Debtors have no liability as not being treated as prima facie evidence of validity of the claim amount and, without additional showing from the claimants of the validity of the claims, disallowing such claims, and gives notice of a hearing.Claims because they have been submitted with insufficient supporting documentation and other information, and thus are in a form not in compliance with applicable bankruptcy rules; and (2) requests entry of an order substantially in the form of the Proposed Order finding that the Insufficient Documentation Claims are not entitled to be treated as prima facie evidence of validity, and, without additional showing from the respective claimants, disallowing and expunging such Insufficient Documentation Claims in their entirety.To the extent that any portion of any of the Insufficient Documentation Claims are also the subject of a separate claim objection on other grounds, whether by separate motion or through an adversary proceeding, the Liquidating Trustee requests that any order on this Motion not affect, eliminate, or determine those separate objections.I, Dana Kane, on behalf of META Advisors LLC, not individually, but solely in its capacity as Liquidating Trustee for the Gander Mountain Liquidating Trust, have reviewed the Motion and declare, based upon (i) my personal knowledge, (ii) my review (or the review of persons under my supervision) of the books and records provided to me by the Debtors’ former employees and/or the Liquidating Trust’s consultants, the Schedules, and Statements filed in these Chapter 11 Cases, the relevant proofs of claim, and the claims register, as well as relevant documents and other information prepared or collected by the Debtors’ employees or professionals and/or the Liquidating Trust’s consultants and professionals, and/or (iii) my opinion based on my experience with the Debtors’ operations and financial condition, that the facts set forth in the preceding Motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. SEPARATE CONTESTED MATTERS To the extent a Response is filed regarding any individual Insufficient Documentation Claim listed in the Motion and the Liquidating Trustee is unable to resolve the Response, the Liquidating Trustee requests that the Motion as it pertains to such Insufficient Documentation Claims shall constitute a separate contested matter as contemplated by Bankruptcy Rule 9014.

List of Tables

Document Contents

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: Jointly Administered Under Case No. 17-30673 (MER) Gander Mountain Company, Case No. 17-30673 Overton’s, Inc. Case No. 17-30675 Debtors. Chapter 11 Cases NOTICE OF HEARING AND LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE’S SEVENTY-SEVENTH OMNIBUS MOTION OBJECTING TO INSUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION CLAIMS TO: The entities specified in Local Rule 3007-1. Recipients should review Paragraph 12 to locate their names and claims addressed by this Motion. 1. The Gander Mountain Liquidating Trust (“Liquidating Trust”) and META Advisors LLC, in its capacity as the liquidating trustee (“Liquidating Trustee”) of the Liquidating Trust, by and through its undersigned counsel, moves the Court (“Motion”) for the relief requested below and entry of an order substantially in the form submitted herewith (“Proposed Order”), holding certain improperly filed proof of claims for which Debtors have no liability as not being treated as prima facie evidence of validity of the claim amount and, without additional showing from the claimants of the validity of the claims, disallowing such claims, and gives notice of a hearing. 2. The Court will hold a hearing on this Motion at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 9, 2021, in Courtroom 7 West, United States Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN, 55415. 3. Any response to this Motion must be filed and served no later than Friday, June 4, 2021, which is five (5) days before the time set for the hearing (including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays). UNLESS A RESPONSE OPPOSING THE MOTION IS TIMELY FILED, THE

1

COURT MAY GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE MOTION WITHOUT A HEARING. In the event a response is timely filed, and the Court determines there are facts in dispute which require an evidentiary hearing, the Liquidating Trustee requests that the Court treat the hearing scheduled above as a scheduling conference for purposes of setting the matter for evidentiary hearing. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5005, and Local Rule 1070-1. This is a core proceeding. 5. This Motion arises under 11 U.S.C. § 502, and is filed under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007(d)(6) and Local Rules 3007-1 and 9013-1 through 9013-3. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 6. The petitions commencing these Chapter 11 cases were filed by the above-captioned debtors (“Debtors”) on March 10, 2017 (“Petition Date”). 7. On March 21, 2017, the Court filed a Notice of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases which, among other things, established July 17, 2017 as the deadline by which creditors, including governmental units, must file proofs of claim [Docket No. 183]. 8. On April 12, 2017, the Debtors filed a consolidated set of schedules of assets and liabilities and statement of financial affairs (“Schedules”), setting forth the consolidated assets and liabilities of the Debtors. Additionally, in the ordinary course of business, the Debtors maintained books and records that reflect, among other things, the Debtors’ aggregate liabilities and the specific amounts owed to each of their creditors. 9. On January 26, 2018, the Court entered an order (“Confirmation Order”) confirming the Debtors’ and Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors’ Joint Plan of Liquidation

2

dated October 31, 2017 (“Plan”). The effective date of the Plan occurred on February 8, 2018 (“Effective Date”). 10. As set forth in Paragraphs 22 through 25 of the Confirmation Order and Article IV.A of the Plan, the estates of the Debtors were substantively consolidated for the purposes of confirming and consummating the Plan, including, but not limited to, making distributions in accordance with the terms of the Plan. Specifically, the Plan provides, inter alia, that on and after the Effective Date (i) all assets and liabilities of the Debtors are treated as though they are pooled, (ii) each claim filed or to be filed against either Debtor, as to which both Debtors are co-liable as a legal or contractual matter, is deemed filed as a single claim against, and single obligation of, the Debtors, (iii) all guarantees of any Debtor of the obligations of the other Debtor are eliminated so that any claim against any Debtor and any claim based upon a guarantee thereof executed by the other Debtor is treated as one claim against the substantively consolidated Debtors, and (iv) any joint or several liability of any of the Debtors is one obligation of the substantively consolidated Debtors and any claims based upon such joint or several liability is treated as one claim against the substantively consolidated Debtors. 11. The Plan established the Liquidating Trust for the purpose of, among other things, collecting and administering all of the Debtors’ assets. The Plan appointed the Liquidating Trustee to administer the Liquidating Trust and to act as the representative of the estate within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b)(3)(B). The Plan grants the Liquidating Trustee the authority to address and resolve issues involving objections, reconciliation, and allowance of claims in accordance with the Plan. 12. The claims identified below (“Insufficient Documentation Claims”) have been submitted in a form that does not comply with applicable rules because they have been submitted

3

with insufficient documentation or other information evidencing the bases for the Insufficient Documentation Claims. The Insufficient Documentation Claims arise from lease-rejection damages that the claimants allege are due and owing by the Debtors, but each of the claimants fail to include with the respective claim the underlying leases and any other related documentation and information. Thus, the Liquidating Trustee is unable to determine the validity of the Insufficient Documentation Claims, as set forth below:
Table 1 on page 4. Back to List of Tables
CLAIMANT
NAME
CLAIM # ASSERTED
CLAIM
AMOUNT
CONTACT
ATTEMPTS
STATUS
ARC RGCHRNC001
LLC RIVERGATE
SOUTH
17800.1 $1,610,024 Email sent on
3/19/2021
No documents
or response
received
BBRG INC 15718.1 $2,227,710 Email sent on
3/19/2021
No documents
or response
received
RIVER OAKS
PROPERTIES LTD
10126.1 $2,284,192 No email provided on
claim.
Letter mailed on
3/19/2021
No documents
or response
received
SPIRIT MASTER
FUNDING VIII LLC
20916.1 $1,467,641 Email sent on
3/19/2021
Letter mailed on
3/22/2021
No documents
or response
received
SPIRIT SPE
GANDER 2013-1
LLC
20919.1 $3,081,309 Email sent on
3/19/2021
Letter mailed on
3/22/2021
No documents
or response
received
SPIRIT SPE
GANDER 2015-1
LLC
20918.1 $1,558,210 Email sent on
3/19/2021
Letter mailed on
3/22/2021
No documents
or response
received
TALON FIRST
TRUST LLC
15740.2 $2,577,865 Email sent on
3/19/2021
Letter mailed on
3/22/2021
No documents
or response
received
WAL‐MART REAL
ESTATE BUSINESS
TRUST
17422.2 $1,201,469 Email sent on
3/19/2021
No documents
or response
received

4

13. By this Motion, the Liquidating Trustee (1) objects to the Insufficient Documentation Claims because they have been submitted with insufficient supporting documentation and other information, and thus are in a form not in compliance with applicable bankruptcy rules; and (2) requests entry of an order substantially in the form of the Proposed Order finding that the Insufficient Documentation Claims are not entitled to be treated as prima facie evidence of validity, and, without additional showing from the respective claimants, disallowing and expunging such Insufficient Documentation Claims in their entirety. GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION 14. The Liquidating Trustee objects to each of the Insufficient Documentation Claims, as listed in Paragraph 12, as being submitted with insufficient documentation and other information, and thus are in a form that does not comply with applicable rules. The Liquidating Trustee has reviewed the Insufficient Documentation Claims and, because of such noncompliance, is unable to reconcile the Insufficient Documentation Claims with the Debtors’ books and records. 15. The Liquidating Trustee views this Motion as a “housekeeping” matter required by the rules of procedure to ensure that the allowed claims reflect the amounts that the Debtors’ estate owes. 16. To the extent that any portion of any of the Insufficient Documentation Claims are also the subject of a separate claim objection on other grounds, whether by separate motion or through an adversary proceeding, the Liquidating Trustee requests that any order on this Motion not affect, eliminate, or determine those separate objections. 17. Pursuant to Local Rule 9013-2(a), this Motion is verified and is accompanied by a memorandum, proposed order, and proof of service.

5

6

VERIFICATION I, Dana Kane, on behalf of META Advisors LLC, not individually, but solely in its capacity as Liquidating Trustee for the Gander Mountain Liquidating Trust, have reviewed the Motion and declare, based upon (i) my personal knowledge, (ii) my review (or the review of persons under my supervision) of the books and records provided to me by the Debtors’ former employees and/or the Liquidating Trust’s consultants, the Schedules, and Statements filed in these Chapter 11 Cases, the relevant proofs of claim, and the claims register, as well as relevant documents and other information prepared or collected by the Debtors’ employees or professionals and/or the Liquidating Trust’s consultants and professionals, and/or (iii) my opinion based on my experience with the Debtors’ operations and financial condition, that the facts set forth in the preceding Motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Dated: April 28, 2021 By:

7

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: Jointly Administered Under Case No. 17-30673 (MER) Gander Mountain Company, Overton’s, Inc. Case No. 17-30673 Case No. 17-30675 Debtors. Chapter 11 Cases MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE’S SEVENTY-SEVENTH OMNIBUS MOTION OBJECTING TO INSUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION CLAIMS The Liquidating Trustee objects to the Insufficient Documentation Claims, which are listed on Paragraph 12 of the Liquidating Trustee’s Seventy-Seventh Omnibus Motion Objecting to Insufficient Documentation Claims (“Motion”), and requests that this Court enter an order disallowing and expunging the Insufficient Documentation Claims in their entirety and granting such other and further relief as is just and equitable. BACKGROUND The facts in support of the relief requested are set forth in the verified Motion. All capitalized terms have the meaning ascribed to them in the Motion. ARGUMENT A proof of claim filed in a bankruptcy proceeding is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. 11 U.S.C. § 502(a); see also Gran v. IRS (In re Gran), 964 F.2d 822, 827 (8th Cir. 1992). If an objection is filed, the objector must come forward with evidence rebutting the claim. Gran, 964 F.2d at 827; In re Oriental Rug Warehouse Club, Inc., 205 B.R. 407, 410 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1997). If the objecting party produces such evidence, the burden of proof shifts to the claimant to produce evidence of the validity of the claim. Gran, 964 F.2d at 827; Oriental Rug,

8

205 B.R. at 410. “In other words, once an objection is made to the proof of claim, the ultimate burden of persuasion as to the claim’s validity and amount rests with the claimant.” Oriental Rug, 205 B.R. at 410 (citations omitted). In making these determinations, a court looks to the governing substantive law. In re Ford, 125 B.R. 735, 737 (E.D. Tex. 1991); In re Gridley, 149 B.R. 128, 132 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1992). Section 502(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in relevant part, that a claim may not be allowed to the extent that “such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law.” 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1). In general, the evidentiary effect of a proof of claim properly filed in accordance with applicable Bankruptcy Rules constitutes “prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f). The burden “then shifts to the objector to establish that the claim fits within one of the exceptions set forth in [§] 502(b).” In re Dove-Nation, 318 B.R. 147, 152 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2004). However, when submitted in a form that does not comply with applicable Bankruptcy Rules, a proof of claim does not constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the claim amount, and therefore the burden remains on the creditor to prove the claim is valid. AFY v. N. Plains Feeders, Inc., 482 B.R. 830, 839-40 (D. Neb. 2012) (quoting In re Porter, 374 B.R. 471, 483 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2007); Caplan v. B-Line (In re Kirkland), 572 F.3d 838, 840-41 (10th Cir. 2009); see PNY Techs. Inc. v. Polaroid Corp. (In re Polaroid Corp.), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47749, *13 (D. Minn. 2017); see also In re Duke and King Acquisition Corp., No. 10-38652 (Bankr. D. Minn. Jul. 2, 2012) (granting order of liquidating trust’s objections based upon lack of adequate supporting documentation). If the claimant fails to identify any evidence supporting its claim following objection, the proof of claim may properly be denied in its entirety. AFY, 374 B.R.

9

at 845; see also In re Duke and King Acquisition Corp., No. 10-38652 (Bankr. D. Minn. Jul. 2, 2012). Bankruptcy Rule 3001(a) requires that a filed proof of claim must “conform substantially to the appropriate Official Form.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a). The appropriate Official Form is Official Form 410, which requires the claimant “[a]ttach redacted copies of any documents that support the claim, such as promissory notes, purchase orders, invoices, itemized statements of running accounts, contracts, judgments, mortgages, and security agreements.” Official Form 410. If such documents are not available, the claimant must explain as much in an attachment to the proof of claim. Id. If a proof of claim is submitted that does not conform substantially to Official Form 410 and its requirements, the proof of claims does not comply with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(a). See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a). The Liquidating Trustee objects to the Insufficient Documentation Claims on the basis that the Insufficient Documentation Claims do not substantially comply with Official Form 410, as required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(a), and therefore are not entitled to a presumption of prima facie validity. The manner in which the Insufficient Documentation Claims fail to conform to the applicable Bankruptcy Rules is that the Insufficient Documentation Claims are each not supported by sufficient documentation and information to support the Insufficient Documentation Claims. The Insufficient Documentation Claims arise from lease-rejection damages that the claimants allege are due and owing by the Debtors, but they do not include the underlying leases and other supporting documents and information. Thus, the Liquidating Trustee is unable to determine the validity of the Insufficient Documentation Claims. Therefore, without a presumption of prima facie validity, the creditors holding the Insufficient Documentation Claims must offer some additional evidence to survive an objection. Unless the creditors holding the Insufficient

10

Documentation Claims respond to this Motion by offering such evidence, the claimants have not met their burden and the Insufficient Documentation Claims should be disallowed and expunged in their entirety. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3007(6), the Liquidating Trustee is authorized to file this Objection on the grounds that the Insufficient Documentation subject to this Objection were presented in a form that does not comply with applicable rules. Accordingly, the Liquidating Trustee (1) objects to the Insufficient Documentation Claims as being submitted in a form not in compliance with applicable bankruptcy rules; and (2) seeks entry of an order substantially in the form of the Proposed Order disallowing and expunging in their entirety each of the Insufficient Documentation Claims, as improperly filed. SEPARATE CONTESTED MATTERS To the extent a Response is filed regarding any individual Insufficient Documentation Claim listed in the Motion and the Liquidating Trustee is unable to resolve the Response, the Liquidating Trustee requests that the Motion as it pertains to such Insufficient Documentation Claims shall constitute a separate contested matter as contemplated by Bankruptcy Rule 9014. The Liquidating Trustee requests that any order entered by the Court regarding a Response asserted in the Motion be deemed a separate order with respect to each Insufficient Documentation Claim subject thereto. CONCLUSION The Liquidating Trustee respectfully requests that the Court enter an order (1) disallowing and expunging each of the Insufficient Documentation Claims, and (2) allowing such other and further relief as is just and equitable.

11

12

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: Jointly Administered Under Case No. 17-30673 (MER) Gander Mountain Company, Case No. 17-30673 Overton’s, Inc. Case No. 17-30675 Debtors. Chapter 11 Cases CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE’S SEVENTY-SEVENTH OMNIBUS MOTION OBJECTING TO INSUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION CLAIMS I, Molly N. Sigler, declare under penalty of perjury that on April 29, 2021, I served copies of the Liquidating Trustee’s Seventy-Seventh Omnibus Motion Objecting to Insufficient Documentation Claims by sending a true and correct copy of each document by U.S. Mail, as indicated, to the recipients as shown on the following service list. Dated: April 29, 2021 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP /e/ Molly N. Sigler Molly N. Sigler, #0399122 2800 Capella Tower 225 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4662 Telephone: (612) 333-2111 Facsimile: (612) 333-6798 Molly.Sigler@btlaw.com

13

Table 1 on page 14. Back to List of Tables
Office of the U.S. Trustee
300 South Fourth Street
Suite 1015
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Gander Mountain Company and Overton’s, Inc.
Lighthouse Management Group, Inc.
Attn: Timothy Becker
990 Long Lake Road, Suite 180
New Brighton, MN 55112
BBRG INC., as management company for BFHM LLC
c/o Jefry Rosmarin
10 Mount Misery Road
Huntington, NY 11743
RIVER OAKS PROPERTIES LTD
106 Mesa Park Drive
El Paso, TX 79912
SPIRIT SPE GANDER 2013-1 LLC
c/o Spirit Realty Capital
2727 North Harwood Street, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201
Talon First Trust, LLC
c/o Talon Real Estate
5500 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1070
Minneapolis, MN 55416

14

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Jointly Administered Under In re: Case No. 17-30673 (MER) Gander Mountain Company, Case No. 17-30673 Overton’s, Inc. Case No. 17-30675 Debtors. Chapter 11 Cases ORDER GRANTING THE LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE’S SEVENTY-SEVENTH OMNIBUS MOTION OBJECTING TO INSUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION CLAIMS This matter is before the Court on the Gander Mountain Liquidating Trust (“Liquidating Trust”) and META Advisors LLC, in its capacity as the liquidating trustee (“Liquidating Trustee”) of the Liquidating Trustee’s Seventy-Seventh Omnibus Motion Objecting to Insufficient Documentation Claims (“Motion”). Based on the Motion and the documents of record herein, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Motion is granted. 2. The claims identified below (“Insufficient Documentation Claims”) are each hereby disallowed and expunged in their entirety: CLAIMANT NAME CLAIM # ASSERTED CONTACT STATUS CLAIM ATTEMPTS AMOUNT ARC RGCHRNC001 LLC 17800.1 $1,610,024 Email sent on 3/19/2021 No documents or RIVERGATE SOUTH response received BBRG INC 15718.1 $2,227,710 Email sent on 3/19/2021 No documents or response received RIVER OAKS 10126.1 $2,284,192 No email provided on No documents or PROPERTIES LTD claim. Letter mailed on response received 3/19/2021 SPIRIT MASTER 20916.1 $1,467,641 Email sent on 3/19/2021 No documents or FUNDING VIII LLC Letter mailed on response received 3/22/2021

15

SPIRIT SPE GANDER 20919.1 $3,081,309 Email sent on 3/19/2021 No documents or 2013-1 LLC Letter mailed on response received 3/22/2021 SPIRIT SPE GANDER 20918.1 $1,558,210 Email sent on 3/19/2021 No documents or 2015-1 LLC Letter mailed on response received 3/22/2021 TALON FIRST TRUST 15740.2 $2,577,865 Email sent on 3/19/2021 No documents or LLC Letter mailed on response received 3/22/2021 WAL‐MART REAL 17422.2 $1,201,469 Email sent on 3/19/2021 No documents or ESTATE BUSINESS response received TRUST 3. The objection to each Insufficient Documentation Claim, as addressed in the Motion, constitutes a separate contested matter as contemplated by Bankruptcy Rule 9014. This Order shall be deemed a separate order with respect to each such Insufficient Documentation Claim that is the subject of the Motion. Any stay of this Order pending appeal by any claimants whose claims are subject to this Order shall only apply to the contested matter that involves such claimant and shall not act to stay the applicability and/or finality of this Order with respect to any other contested matters addressed in the Motion and this Order. 4. The Liquidating Trust and the Liquidating Trustee are authorized to take any and all actions that are necessary and appropriate to give effect to this Order. 5. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over all matters arising from or related to the interpretation and implementation of this Order. Dated: _________________________________________ Judge Michael E. Ridgway United States Bankruptcy Judge

16