{"ID":62870,"name":"PEM Entities LLC v. Levin","href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/cases\/2017\/16-492","view_count":0,"docket_number":"16-492","additional_docket_numbers":null,"manner_of_jurisdiction":"Writ of \u003Ci\u003Ecertiorari\u003C\/i\u003E","first_party":"PEM Entities LLC","second_party":"Eric M. Levin, et. al.","timeline":[{"event":"Granted","dates":[1498539600],"href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/case_timeline\/case_timeline\/54088"},{"event":"Dismissed as improvidently granted","dates":[1502341200],"href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/case_timeline\/case_timeline\/54107"}],"lower_court":{"ID":9,"name":"United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit","href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/taxonomy\/term\/9"},"facts_of_the_case":"\u003Cp\u003EProvince Grand Olde Liberty, LLC (\u0022Debtor\u0022) sought to acquire Olde Liberty Golf and Country Club (\u0022Golf Club\u0022), and borrowed from two institutions in order to finance the acquisition. Debtor defaulted on the larger of the two loans, and the creditors initiated foreclosure proceedings, and, in an effort to resolve the loans, entered into a settlement agreement that involved selling the debt to PEM Entities for a significantly discounted price. PEM\u0027s members did not participate in the negotiation of the settlement agreement, despite that the settlement agreement affected the rights and property of PEM. After several transactions among the parties involved in the settlement agreement, Debtor filed its bankruptcy petition in March 2013. It listed PEM\u0027s claim at $7 million, \u00a0the principal and the accrued interest of the loan that PEM bought.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EAmong other determinations, the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to creditors Eric M. Levin and Howard Shareff on their equitable claim of recharacterization, noting that PEM\u0027s discounted loan purchase was a settlement and satisfaction of the original loan to Debtor. Thus, the court rendered PEM\u0027s $7 million claim void. PEM appealed the bankruptcy court\u0027s order to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which reviewed the findings de novo and affirmed the bankruptcy court\u0027s judgment. In a per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court\u0027s decision.\u003C\/p\u003E\n","question":"\u003Cp\u003EShould bankruptcy courts apply a federal rule of decision (as five circuits have held) or a state law rule of decision (as two circuits have held) when deciding to recharacterize a debt claim in bankruptcy as a capital contribution?\u003C\/p\u003E\n","conclusion":null,"advocates":null,"oral_argument_audio":null,"citation":{"volume":null,"page":null,"year":null,"href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/case_citation\/case_citation\/27530"},"decisions":[{"description":null,"votes":null,"majority_vote":0,"minority_vote":0,"winning_party":"dismissal","decision_type":"dismissal - improvidently granted","href":"https:\/\/api.oyez.org\/case_decision\/case_decision\/16950"}],"first_party_label":"Petitioner","second_party_label":"Respondent","heard_by":[null],"decided_by":null,"term":"2017","location":null,"opinion_announcement":null,"description":"A case in which the Court was asked to resolve a circuit split as to whether bankruptcy courts should apply a federal rule of decision (as five circuits have held) or a state law rule of decision (as two circuits have held) when deciding to recharacterize a debt claim in bankruptcy as a capital contribution.","written_opinion":null,"related_cases":null,"justia_url":"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/2017\/16-492\/","argument2_url":null}