In re: Syntax-Brillian Corporation et al.
Filing
77
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 75 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 12/9/2016. (asw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
INRE:
SYNTAX-BRILLIAN CORPORATION., et al.,
Debtors.
Chapter 11
Banla. Case No. 08-11407 (KJC)
(Jointly Administered)
Appellant,
Civ. No. 13-337 (GMS)
AHMED AMR,
v.
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, et al.,
Appellees.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.
INTRODUCTION
Presently before the court is the pro se appeal (D.I. 1) of Ahmed Amr ("Appellant"), a
former shareholder of the above-captioned Chapter 11 debtors ("Debtors"), from a Banlauptcy
I
Court Memorandum Order (B.D.I. 2107) 1 ("Reconsideration Order"), which denied Appellant's
Motion to Reconsider and Vacate Orders (B.D.I. 2001) ("Motion to Reconsider") regarding the
Banlauptcy Court's prior (1) Order Denying Motion to Compel (B.D.I. 1996), and (2) Order
Denying Motion to Sanction Nancy Mitchell and Greenberg Traurig LLP (B.D.I. 1997). The
Reconsideration Order is the only order on appeal, and the parties have completed briefing on the
merits. (See D.I. 43, 45, 50.)
On September 29, 2016, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying
numerous motions and requests for relief filed by Appellant and other similarly aggrieved former
1
The bankruptcy docket, captioned In re Syntax-Brillian Corporation, et al., Case No. 08-11407 (KJC) (Bankr. D.
Del.), is cited herein as "B.D.I. ."
i
I
I
-
1
shareholders, both related and unrelated to this appeal (the "Shareholder Motions"). 2 (See D.I. 73,
74.) Following the ruling on the Shareholder Motions, on November 18, 2016, Appellant filed
Ahmed Amr 's Motion to Recuse Judge Gregory Sleet for Abuse of Power, Abuse of Jurisdiction,
Racketeering, Proceeding on False Evidence, False Utterances About Forged Documentation and
Failure to Report Forgeries to Law Enforcement Authorities, Violations of Appellant's Due
Process Rights and For Allowing Judge Brendan Shannon to Ghost Write His Opinions (D.I. 75)
("Recusal Motion").
This memorandum opinion addresses the Recusal Motion, Appellant's
Requests for Judicial Notice (D.I. 21, 25), and the appeal of the Reconsideration Order.
II.
BACKGROUND
The court assumes familiarity with the history of the Debtors' bankruptcy cases. The
factual background of this case is set forth in prior opinions by the Bankruptcy Court. 3 The
following background is only a summary of the facts relevant to the appeal.
A. The Chapter 11 Cases
This appeal arises from the Chapter 11 cases of Syntax-Brillian Corporation and its debtor
affiliates. Prior to commencing these cases, the Debtors were in the business of selling "Olevia"
brand flat screen televisions through retail distribution channels such as Target. The televisions
were sourced and assembled in Asia and shipped to the United States. The record reflects that the
Debtors were victims of a large scale fraud perpetuated by their pre-bankruptcy management and
2
The Shareholder Motibns included: Appellant's purported Motion for Summary Judgment Affirming Appellant's
Standing to Sanction Nancy Mitchell and Greenberg Traurig (D.1. 23); Motion for an Emergency Injunction Directing
the Secret Service to Seize and Confiscate Forged Documents Currently in the Custody of the Liquidation Trustee
(D.I. 38); and Motion to Impeach Nancy Mitchell's and Greenberg Traurig's Evidence (D.I. 70). Eight former
I
shareholders have filed :separate pro se Motions to Intervene Due to Bankruptcy Fraud, Spoliation of Evidence and
Concealment ofForgelJl. (D.1. 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55.)
3
See SB Liquidation Trust v. Preferred Bank (In re Syntax-Brillian Corp.), No. 08-11407 (BLS), 2011 WL 3101809
(Bankr. D. Del. July 25, 2011); SB Liquidation Trust v. Preferred Bank (Jn re Syntax-Brillian Corp.), No. 08-11407
(BLS), 2013 WL 153831 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 15, 2013), In re Syntax-Brillian Corp., 551 B.R. 156 (Bankr. D. Del.
2016); see also SB Liquidation Trust v. Preferred Bank (In re Syntax-Brillian Corp.), 573 Fed. Appx. 154 (3d Cir.
2014).
2
certain of their vendors or business partners in th~ Far East. As a result of losses suffered due at
I
I
least in part to such fraud, the Debtors' business collapsed in the spring of 2008, and these cases
were commenced on July 8, 2008 ("Petition Date"), with the stated intention of effecting a sale of
substantially all assets under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. (See B.D.I. 1.) On August 12,
2008, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing the Debtors' retention and employment
of the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLP ("GT") as its bankruptcy counsel. (B.D.I. 236.) The
record reflects that Nancy A. Mitchell was one of the GT attorneys that lead the Debtors'
representation. Following the Petition Date, the Bankruptcy Court approved sale procedures and
bid protections for a proposed stalking horse bidder.
(B.D.I. 210.)
No competing bidders
appeared, and the sale was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on August 22, 2008 (B.D.I. 317.)
The stalking horse bidder subsequently failed to close on the sale, however, and the Debtors
promptly shut down operations.
The Office of the United States Trustee ("UST") moved for the appointment of an examiner
to investigate, among other things, substantial allegations of fraud and misconduct by the Debtors'
former officers and directors, as well as prepetition business dealings between the Debtors and
their Asian suppliers and business partners. (See B.D.I. 112.) The UST's motion was supported
by a number of shareholders, including the Appellant. (See B.D.I. 276.) Specifically, Appellant
contended that he had undertaken his own investigation and had uncovered substantial evidence
of wrongdoing by the Debtors' prepetition management and numerous entities in the Far East. The
UST's motion was opposed by the Debtors (B.D.I. 133, 150), the Official Committee ofUnsecured
Creditors ("Committee"), and by Silver Point Finance. LLC ("Silver Point"), the Debtors' DIP
lender and primary prepetition secured creditor, on the bases that (i) the Debtors and Committee
were capable of performing any necessary investigation, and (ii) the estates had insufficient time
3
and money to allo'r for a court-ordered investigation. The Bankruptcy Court overruled these
i
objections and appointed an examiner by Order dated September 3, 2008. (B.D.I. 366.) The
Bankruptcy Court further directed that the examiner meet with Appellant to obtain the benefit of
his efforts. (See B.D.I. 416.)
The examiner completed his investigation and reported back to the Bankruptcy Court at a
hearing held on October 22, 2008.
The examiner reported that there was substantial reason to
believe that the Debtors had been defrauded by their vendors or business partners in the Far East,
and that the Debtors' prepetition management was either complicit in the wrong doing or negligent
in allowing it to occur. The examiner recommended further investigation and the commencement
of litigation on behalf of the Debtors' estates. On November 26, 2008, the Committee obtained
authority from the Bankruptcy Court to sue and promptly commenced an adversary proceeding
against numerous parties. 4
The Debtors' filed a proposed plan of liquidation. On March 12, 2009, the Bankruptcy
Court approved the Debtor's Second Amended Disclosure Statement (B.D.I. 1017, 1020) (the
"Disclosure Statement").
The Disclosure Statement made fulsome disclosure regarding pre-
petition and post-petition investigations and claims of the Debtors against a variety of parties,
including prior management and trading partners. The Disclosure Statement also specifically
stated that recovery for shareholders was unlikely. (See B.D.I. 1017 at 40.) On July 6, 2009, the
Bankruptcy Court
~ntered an order (B.D.I.
I
1529) (the "Confirmation Order") confirming the
Debtors' Second Amended Chapter 11 Liquidation Plan (B.D.I. 1016) (the "Plan"). The effective
I
I
date of the Plan occiirred on July 7, 2009 (the "Effective Date"). (See B.D.I. 1533.) On August
6, 2009, GT filed its ,final application for compensation and reimbursement of expenses as counsel
4
SB Liquidation Trust v. Li, et al., Adv. Proc. No. 08-51830 (KJC) (Banl
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?