This case stems from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of South Coast Supply Company, an oil and gas distributor. In 2014, following a decline in oil prices, the company's lender, Briar Capital, restricted funding. Robert Remmert, the company's Chief Operating Officer, stepped in to save the business by personally loaning it $800,000. As funds became available, South Coast repaid Remmert through thirty-one checks totaling $320,628.04. When South Coast filed for bankruptcy in 2017, it initiated a preference claim against Remmert to recover these payments, arguing they were preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(5). The claim was assigned to Briar Capital, which then sued Remmert in district court. After a jury trial, the jury found that Briar Capital failed to prove Remmert received more than he would have in a hypothetical Chapter 7 liquidation. Briar Capital did not file a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) or a post-verdict motion under Rule 50(b) or Rule 59, but instead appealed directly to the Fifth Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment based on a strict procedural bar. The court held that Briar Capital waived its right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to file a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law after the jury's verdict. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.*, the court explained that appellate review of legal insufficiency is unavailable absent such a post-verdict motion. The court rejected Briar Capital's argument that it could still review the verdict for plain error. The panel noted that a different panel had previously rejected this exact argument, stating that under the rule of orderliness, the court is powerless to review evidence sufficiency without a Rule 50(b) motion. Even if plain error review were available, the court found that some evidence supported the jury's verdict. The jury heard testimony regarding uncertainties in South Coast's financial status, such as potential undervaluation of assets and collectability of obligations. The court clarified that charts and calculations presented only during closing arguments do not constitute evidence, but the testimony heard was sufficient to support the jury's finding.
The judgment for Robert Remmert is final, allowing him to retain the $320,628.04 in payments. The decision reinforces the strict procedural requirement that parties must file Rule 50(b) motions to preserve sufficiency of evidence challenges for appeal. It leaves open the substantive bankruptcy preference question for future cases where the procedural bar is cleared, but confirms that appellate courts cannot substitute their judgment for a jury's on evidence sufficiency without the proper post-verdict motion.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download