Aegina Investments, LLC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
AEGINA INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 07-00297
(Chapter 11)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION RE TRUSTEE’S MOTION TO SELL REAL PROPERTY
This supplements the court’s oral decision of this date.
The trustee only contacted two entities regarding possibly buying
the property, namely, the two entities who had made offers to the
debtor for the property during the past five years. 	That was an
insufficient exposure of the property to the market. 	See In re
Castre, Inc., 312 B.R. 426, 428 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2005) (in
addressing a sale motion, the court must consider whether there
was “proper exposure to the market”); In re Gulf States Steel,
Inc. of Alabama, 285 B.R. 497, 514 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2002)
(same). 	The court thus declined to approve the sale at this
juncture.
There remains the question whether the length of time that
the property will be exposed to the market before the next
The Memorandum Decision below is sgined. Dated:
April 23, 2008.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-00297 Doc 137 Filed 04/25/08 Entered 04/25/08 12:53:02 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
hearing will be sufficient to assure that a price is obtained
that maximizes the benefit to the estate in comparison to what
would result were the property exposed to the market by a real
estate broker for the six to nine months (and more likely nine
months) that the trustee’s expert opined would be necessary to
achieve a sale of the property at fair market value. 	The
property’s carrying costs are relatively slight, and a sale now
at less than fair market value would result in the estate earning
only a modest amount of interest for the period of approximately
a year that it would take to close a sale at fair market value.
The court did not decide whether the current proposed sale
would be in the best interests of the estate were it still the
highest and best offer after the property is fully exposed to the
market during the month prior to the next hearing. 	Yes, the
current sale price might be within the range of what would be
expected to be achieved in a liquidation sale conducted during a
one-month period, but that does not necessarily mean that the
sale is superior to the trustee’s marketing the property through
a real estate broker to achieve fair market value. 	The trustee
will need to convince me that the current offer is in the best
interests of the estate even though his only evidence of the fair
market value suggests that the estate would be better off than if
the property were marketed through a broker to attempt to achieve
a sale at fair market value (after taking into account a broker’s
Case 07-00297 Doc 137 Filed 04/25/08 Entered 04/25/08 12:53:02 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3	O:\Judge Temp Docs\Aegina Investments Mem Decsn re Proposed Sale.wpd
fee, carrying costs, and the time value of the delayed receipt of
sales proceeds).
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor; Scott J. Newton, Esq. [Debtor’s attorney];
Office of United States Trustee; Linda M. Correia, Esq. [counsel
for trustee]; Jeffrey L. Tarkenton, Esq. [counsel for Alturas
Real Estate Interests, LLC]; Marc Albert, Esq. [counsel for
proposed purchaser].
Case 07-00297 Doc 137 Filed 04/25/08 Entered 04/25/08 12:53:02 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3