No to pausing IPI receivership

Ramona Mangloña

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona Mangloña said no yesterday to Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC’s request to pause the IPI receivership, but she said she may reconsider if the casino firm can demonstrate that it has satisfied pending court judgments.

In a 16-page order that denied IPI and its creditors’ stipulation, or agreement, to pause the receivership, Mangloña said the court denies another stay on the receivership until such time that IPI can demonstrate that it has satisfied all pending judgments with her court.

In fact, if IPI is able to demonstrate that it has satisfied all pending judgments, Mangloña said the court may reconsider its decision and may even consider termination of the receivership.

“When IPI can demonstrate that it has satisfied the pending judgments in this court, the court may reconsider whether to reinstate the stay or even terminate the limited receivership. Until such time, the court will not stay the receivership on the eve before the first auction is to take place when there are still outstanding judgment creditors against IPI. The receiver’s sale is not a final sale unless approved by the court. Once IPI can demonstrate that it has satisfied judgments for the current judgment creditors in this court, IPI may renew its motion to stay and retain its assets,” she said.

The receivership is currently being carried out by the court-appointed receiver, Clear Management Ltd.

Mangloña explained that one of the reasons for her denial is because of IPI’s history of delayed payments or even non-payments.

“First, IPI has had an extensive history of delayed or non-payment to a multitude of creditors. This court has expended considerable resources and time giving IPI an opportunity to make amends with those creditors. Yet, despite numerous status conferences, orders to show cause, orders in aid of judgment—IPI’s promises have often been empty or delayed,” she said.

Another reason, the court noted, is because even though IPI can demonstrate that it has satisfied pending judgments of those who have assumed the receivership after U.S.A Fanter, including the Wang plaintiffs, the Genc plaintiffs, and N15 Architecture, there are still other creditors who have yet to be paid in and outside of the District Court.

“While some creditors have had the benefit of competent counsel, at least one creditor has operated pro se and now has his claims compromised based on the promise of yet another delay in payment. …Numerous creditors have come forward in this receivership to seek relief from IPI—both from this court and the Commonwealth Superior Court at the hearing on this stipulation, IPI was unable to report to the court the status of the various creditors that entered their appearances in this case through counsel. The receiver’s counsel, who also has other creditors as clients, reported that none of his three clients were paid a penny. Simply because some creditors, interestingly including creditors not from this court, were able to reach more expeditious resolution, it does not mean that other creditors should continue languishing while payments are uncertain. The equities do not tilt in favor of defendant IPI,” she said.

According to Saipan Tribune archives, as of last Tuesday, Clear Management, through lawyer Michael White, has sought the court’s confirmation of sales made following the closing of the Oct. 7 IPI gaming equipment auction.

The first auction netted a total of over $400,000.