In re: Speer

Filing 25

ORDER: The order of the Bankruptcy Court is hereby affirmed. The Clerk may close this appeal. See attached for details. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 1/29/2018. (Chenoweth, T.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

IN RE: SHERI SPEER

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-1437 (RNC)

ORDER
Bankruptcy debtor Sheri Speer, proceeding pro se, seeks
review of a bankruptcy court order granting a motion by the
Chapter 7 Trustee, Thomas Boscarino, to approve a compromise and
settlement of claims between the estate and McCarthy Burgess and
Wolff, a law firm (“McCarthy Burgess”).

The issue on appeal is

whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in approving
the proposed compromise.

See In re 47-49 Charles St., Inc., 209

B.R. 618, 620 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (“A bankruptcy court's decision to
approve a settlement should not be overturned unless it is
manifestly erroneous and a clear abuse of discretion.”).

I

assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history of this case, which I reference only as
necessary to explain my decision.
Ms. Speer argues that the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of
fact and conclusions of law are insufficient.

In addition, she

contends that Mr. Boscarino is not disinterested, which should
have raised a “red flag” regarding the propriety of this
compromise.

I find both contentions to be without merit.

To determine whether a settlement under Federal Rule of

Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 is reasonable, courts consider a number
of factors.

In re Iridium Operating LLC, 478 F.3d 452, 462 (2d

Cir. 2007).

These include “(1) the balance between the

litigation’s possibility of success and the settlement’s future
benefits; (2) the likelihood of complex and protracted
litigation, ‘with its attendant expense, inconvenience, and
delay,’ including the difficulty in collecting on the judgment;
(3) ‘the paramount interests of the creditors,’ including each
affected class’s relative benefits ‘and the degree to which
creditors either do not object to or affirmatively support the
proposed settlement’; (4) whether other parties in interest
support the settlement; (5) the ‘competency and experience of
counsel’ supporting, and ‘[t]he experience and knowledge of the
bankruptcy court judge’ reviewing, the settlement; (6) ‘the
nature and breadth of releases to be obtained by officers and
directors’; and (7) ‘the extent to which the settlement is the
product of arm’s length bargaining.’”

Id. (quoting In re

WorldCom, Inc., 347 B.R. 123, 137 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)).

“In

weighing these factors, a bankruptcy court need not decide the
numerous questions of law and fact raised by the settlement,
rather, it need only ‘canvass the issues and see whether the
settlement falls below the lowest point in the range of
reasonableness.’”

In re Strawbridge, No. 11 Civ. 6759(PAE), 2012

WL 701031, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2012) (quoting Guippone v. BH

2

S & B Holdings, LLC, No. 09 Civ. 01029(CM), 2011 WL 5148650, at
*5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2011)); see also In re WorldCom, 347 B.R.
at 137 (“It is not necessary for the bankruptcy court to conduct
a ‘mini trial’ on the issue.”).
Here, the Bankruptcy Court conducted a hearing regarding the
proposed settlement at which Mr. Boscarino and counsel for
McCarthy Burgess presented their views.

Mr. Boscarino stated

that he had reviewed the pleadings and other filings in Ms.
Speer’s case against McCarthy Burgess in Connecticut Superior
Court, described the nature of the case, and stated that a nonsuit had been granted in favor of McCarthy Burgess.

Mr.

Boscarino stated that Ms. Speer had not provided him with any
evidence to support the claim in the underlying suit and that he
was not otherwise aware of any such evidence.

Mr. Boscarino then

described the nature of the compromise: In exchange for a release
by the estate of any claim against McCarthy Burgess, the firm
would (1) pay the estate $1,750 in cash, (2) withdraw a proof of
claim in the amount of $391.45, and (3) waive any other claims it
had against the estate.

Mr. Boscarino acknowledged that Ms.

Speer had filed an offer of compromise in Connecticut Superior
Court valuing her claims at $3,700 but stated that he believed
this settlement was in the best interest of the estate’s
creditors.

Counsel for McCarthy Burgess also spoke briefly,

stating that he viewed the settlement as more than fair given the

3

Superior Court’s entry of a non-suit in his client’s favor.

Ms.

Speer did not attend the hearing or otherwise provide any reason
for the Bankruptcy Court to discount the statements made during
the hearing.1

After considering all of the information

presented, the Bankruptcy Court approved the compromise.
The Bankruptcy Court did not explicitly weigh the various
factors set out in In re Iridium Operating.

But the information

presented to the Court provided sufficient grounds to approve the
compromise in accordance with the relevant factors.

Ms. Speer

has provided no basis on which to conclude that the Bankruptcy
Court abused its discretion in approving the compromise.
Accordingly, the decision of the Bankruptcy Court is
affirmed.

The Clerk is directed to close this appeal.

So ordered this 29th day of January, 2018.
/s/ RNC
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge

1

Ms. Speer argues that the Bankruptcy Court should have
been particularly vigilant because Mr. Boscarino is not
disinterested. However, aside from Ms. Speer’s speculation, the
Bankruptcy Court was presented with no evidence that Mr.
Boscarino had a conflict of interest or was otherwise incapable
of performing his duties in a disinterested manner.
4