Opinion
22-CV-04158
06-21-2022
In re LATAM AIRLINES GROUP S.A., ET AL. v. LATAM Airlines Group S.A., et al. Appellees.[1] The Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors Of Latam Airlines Group, S.A., And Its Affiliated Debtors-In-Possession, Appellant,
Richard J. Cooper Lisa M. Schweitzer Luke A. Barefoot Thomas S. Kessler Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession John K. Cunningham Brian D. Pfeiffer Gregory M. Starner Joshua Weedman Kathryn Sutherland-Smith 1121 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Counsel for the Ad Hoc Group of LATAM Bondholders Kenneth H. Eckstein Rachael L. Ringer David E. Blabey, Jr. Douglas Buckley 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Counsel to the Parent Ad Hoc Claimant Group
Richard J. Cooper Lisa M. Schweitzer Luke A. Barefoot Thomas S. Kessler Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession
John K. Cunningham Brian D. Pfeiffer Gregory M. Starner Joshua Weedman Kathryn Sutherland-Smith 1121 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Counsel for the Ad Hoc Group of LATAM Bondholders
Kenneth H. Eckstein Rachael L. Ringer David E. Blabey, Jr. Douglas Buckley 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Counsel to the Parent Ad Hoc Claimant Group
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ALLOW CERTAIN AD HOC GROUPS TO INTERVENE
Hon. Ronnie Abrams
Proposed intervenors the Parent Ad Hoc Claimant Group and the Ad Hoc Group of LATAM Bondholders (the “Bondholder Group”) (together, the “Proposed Intervenors”) respectfully move the Court to permit the Proposed Intervenors to intervene in the above-captioned appeal pursuant to Rule 8013 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
WHEREAS on January 10, 2022, the Appellant the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”, or the “Appellants”) objected to the claim (the “Intercompany Claim”) held by LATAM Finance Ltd. against Peuco Finance Ltd. [Dkt. No. 20- 11254-jlg, Doc. No. 4043];
WHEREAS on February 25 and 28, 2022, the Bondholder Group and Appellees LATAM Airlines Group S.A. and certain of its affiliated debtors (together, the “Appellees” or the “Debtors”), respectively, filed a response in support of the Intercompany Claim [Dkt. No. 20-11254-jlg, Doc. Nos. 4415, 4420,];
WHEREAS on February 28, 2022, the Parent Ad Hoc Claimant Group filed a statement in support of the Intercompany Claim [Dkt. No. 20-11254-jlg, Doc. No. 4440];
WHEREAS on March 10 and 18, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court held an evidentiary hearing as well as oral argument on the Committee's objection to the Intercompany Claim (the “Intercompany Claim Hearing”);
WHEREAS on March 22, 2022, the Debtors filed their post-Intercompany Claim Hearing brief in support of the Intercompany Claim [Dkt. No. 20-11254-jlg, Doc. No. 4729];
WHEREAS on March 24 and 25, 2022, the Proposed Intervenors filed their post Intercompany Claim Hearing briefs in support of the Intercompany Claim [Dkt. No. 20-11254-jlg, Doc. Nos. 4764, 4756];
WHEREAS on April 29, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum decision and order overruling the Committee's objection to the Intercompany Claim [Dkt. No. 20-11254-jlg, Doc. No. 5189] (the “Intercompany Claim Opinion and Order”);
WHEREAS on May 13, 2022, the Committee filed a notice of appeal of the Intercompany Claim Opinion and Order [Dkt. No. 20-11254-jlg, Doc. No. 5361];
WHEREAS on May 25, 2022, the Committee and the Debtors filed the Agreed Motion to Stay Briefing on the Merits of the Above Captioned Appeal Pending Resolution of Chapter 11 Cases [Doc. No. 3] (the “Motion to Stay”).
WHEREAS on May 26, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the Motion to Stay and staying the briefing of this appeal [Doc. No. 4] (the “Stay Order”).
WHEREAS the Proposed Intervenors are interested in their capacities as creditors of the relevant Debtor estates; the Proposed Intervenors played roles in the proceedings below, including through filing briefings and statements in support of the Intercompany Claim and participating at the Intercompany Claim Hearing; the Proposed Intervenors are timely intervening consistent with Rule 8013 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure; and, in light of their role in the proceedings below and as parties that may be materially economically impacted by the Committee's objection to the Intercompany Claim, believe that their participation as intervenors is more appropriate than seeking leave to file briefs as amici curiae;
WHEREAS neither the Committee nor the Debtors oppose the Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene in the above-captioned appeal.
NOW THEREFORE, for good cause shown, the Proposed Inventors respectfully request that the Court enter an order:
1. permitting the Proposed Intervenors to intervene in the above-captioned appeal; and
2. extending the Stay Order to the Proposed Intervenors.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
WHITE & CASE LLP
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
In light of the parties' lack of opposition to the motion, and after considering the requirements laid out in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8013(g), the Court grants the Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene. The Court's stay order in this action shall extend to Intervenors.
SO ORDERED.