In re: JEFFREY PROSSER v. Gomez, Chief Judge Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1 a December 1, 2009

1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-3894
In re: JEFFREY PROSSER,
Debtor
GREENLIGHT CAPITAL QUALIFIED, L.P.;
GREENLIGHT CAPITAL, L.P.;
GREENLIGHT CAPITAL OFFSHORE, LTD.,
Appellants
Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands,
Division of St. Thomas and St. John
(Civ No. 08-cv-00093)
District Judge: Hon. Curtis V. Gomez, Chief Judge
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 1, 2009
Before: McKEE, Chief Circuit Judge, FUENTES, and
NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion filed: July 23, 2010)
OPINION
McKEE, Chief Circuit Judge.
Greenlight Capital Qualified, L.P., Greenlight Capital, L.P., and Greenlight Capital
Offshore, Ltd. (collectively “Greenlight) appeal an order of the district court affirming the
order of the bankruptcy court denying Greenlight’s objection to a proof of claim filed by

-- 1 of 2 --

“An order allowing or disallowing a claim is a final, appealable order.” Orsini1
Santos v. Mender, 349 B.R. 762, 768 (1st Cir. BAP 2006) (citing In re Perry, 391 F.3d
282, 285 (1st Cir. 2004).
V.I. CODE ANN. Title 9, § 39(c) provides: “At least one-third of the total2
number of directors shall be bona fide residents of the United States Virgin Islands, and
all shall be at least 21 years of age, and shall hold shares of the bank, subscribed in their
name, of a par value of not less than $1,000 which shares shall be deposited in the bank
while the said directors discharge their offices.”
2
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (“BPPR”).1
Inasmuch as the district court recited the factual background to this dispute in its
Memorandum Opinion, we find it unnecessary to repeat that background here. See In re
Prosser, 2008 WL 3979476 (D.V.I. Aug. 22, 2008). The gist of Greenlight’s argument
here is that, pursuant to V.I. CODE ANN. Title 9, § 39(c), stock in the Virgin Islands2
Community Bank (“VICB”) owned by Jeffrey Prosser, the debtor and a director of the
VICB, was non-transferrable and therefore could not be held as collateral for BPPR’s
loan to Prosser. We disagree. As the district court noted, Section 39(c) speaks only to the
qualification and regulation of bank directors. Id. at *3. Thus, the district court correctly
held that “[n]othing in that section prevents the shareholder from using the stock as
collateral to secure a loan.” Id. at *2.
Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district
court’s Memorandum Opinion without further elaboration.

-- 2 of 2 --