Lead Opinion
NEWMAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the court with respect to Part III, in which ARCHER, C.J., and RICH, MAYER, MICHEL, LOURIE, CLEVENGER, RADER, SCHALL, and BRYSON, JJ., joined. PLAGER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which NIES, J., joined.
ON REHEARING EN BANC
Texas American Oil Corporation has appealed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Tex
On May 10, 1994 a panel of this court issued its decision on this appeal. Texas American Oil Corp. v. United States Dep’t of Energy,
I
ADOPTION OF PRECEDENT
As foundation for decision of the cases transferred to this court in accordance with Pub.L. No. 102-572, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit adopts as precedent the body of law represented by the holdings of the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.
This court applies the rule that earlier decisions prevail unless overruled by the court en banc, or by other controlling authority such as intervening statutory change or Supreme Court decision. See South Corp. v. United States,
Since Texas American has challenged the TECA’s jurisdiction in this ease, we first consider the correctness of the transfer from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
II
JURISDICTION
When the Fifth Circuit transferred this appeal to the TECA, in accordance with Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.,
strictly to principles of law of the case. Situations might arise, of course, in which the transferee court considers the transfer “clearly erroneous.” But as “[t]he doctrine of the law of the case is ... a heavy deterrent to vacillation on arguable issues,” such reversals should necessarily be exceptional; courts will rarely transfer*1562 cases over which they have clear jurisdiction, and close questions, by definition, never have clearly correct answers. Under law-of-the-case principles, if the transferee court can find the transfer decision plausible, its jurisdictional inquiry is at an end.
Our review, of the Fifth Circuit’s transfer ruling is conducted within the analytical framework of Christianson. Although the Fifth Circuit did not explain its ruling, the Court stated in Christianson that the fact that the appellate court “did not explicate its rationale is irrelevant, for the law of the case turns on whether a court previously ‘decide[d] upon a rule of lavri ... not on whether, or how well, it explained the decision.”
A
The Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 (ESA), Pub.L. No. 91-379, 84 Stat. 799 (1970), codified at 12 U.S.C. § 1904 note, authorized the President to stabilize prices, rents, wages, and salaries, and to establish priorities for use and allocation of petroleum products. Section 211 of the ESA, the judicial review provision, placed trial jurisdiction in the federal district courts and created the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals, assigning to it exclusive appellate jurisdiction in “cases and controversies arising under” the ESA:
§ 211(b)(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all appeals from the district courts of the United States in cases and controversies arising under this title or under regulations or orders issued thereunder. ...
The purpose was “to funnel into one court all the appeals arising out of the District Courts and thus gain in consistency of decision”. S.Rep. No. 92-507, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess. 10, reprinted in 1971 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2283, 2292. The ESA authority expired on April 3.0,1974; however, ESA sections 205 through 213 (other than section 212(b)) were incorporated by reference into section 5(a)(1) of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act (EPAA), which was enacted in response to nationwide shortages of petroleum products due to the 1973 Arab oil embargo. Pub.L. No. 93-159, 87 Stat. 627 (1973), codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 751 et seq.
In January 1981 the President lifted all price controls of petroleum products. Exee.Order No. 12,287, 46 Fed.Reg. 9,909 (1981). The President’s authority to promulgate regulations and controls under the EPAA expired on September 30,1981 pursuant to a sunset provision, 15 U.S.C. § 760g, and has not been renewed. Section 760g provided that the expiration of this regulatory authority did not affect any pending action or proceeding not then finally determined, or any administrative, civil, or criminal action or proceeding, whether or not pending, based upon any act committed or liability incurred prior to the expiration date.
The Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992 amended the ESA to read:
§ 211(b)(2) Appeals from orders or judgments entered by a district court of the United States in cases and controversies arising under this title shall be brought in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit if the appeal is from a final decision of the district court or is from an interlocutory appeal permitted under section 1292(c) of title 28, United States Code.
Pub.L. 102-572, § 102,
(11) of an appeal under section 211 of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970;
(12) of an appeal under section 5 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973;
(13) of an appeal under section 506(c) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978; and
*1563 (14) of an appeal under section 523 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
It is reported that several dozen actions remain in administrative or judicial process.
B
The TECA interpreted its statutory authorization under ESA § 211(b)(2) as meaning “issue” jurisdiction, not “case” or “arising under” jurisdiction.
The TECA has exercised jurisdiction of any EPAA/ESA issue whether presented by complaint, as a defense, or as a counterclaim. See Citronelle-Mobile Gathering,
The TECA established two threshold jurisdictional requirements: (1) resolution of the litigation must have required application or interpretation of the EPAA/ESA or its regulations, and (2) the EPAA/ESA issue must have been adjudicated in the district court. See Sector Refining, Inc. v. Enterprise Refining Co.,
Meanwhile, during the period of development of the Federal Circuit’s structure, scholarly attention to the TECA’s jurisdictional posture burgeoned. E.g., Note, The Appellate Jurisdiction of the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals, 64 Minn. L.Rev. 1247, 1272-73 (1980) (criticizing the TECA system requiring bifurcated appeals as resulting in “confusion, hardship for liti-. gants, forced decision making, and delay”); Eric Watt Wiechmann & Charles J. Heinzer, An Unappealing Dilemma: Searching for the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals, 3 U.Bridgeport L.Rev. 306, 322 (1982) (“The existing status of the TECA’s jurisdiction is unsatisfactory.”) Commentators condemned the TECA’s “issue” jurisdiction as entailing satellite litigation, causing transfers and retransfers of cases and parts of cases, and creating inefficiencies in the use of judicial and litigant resources.
The Federal Circuit was organized with an explicitly broader appellate assignment than that of the TECA, apparently for the purpose of avoiding the problems inherent in “issue” jurisdiction. Thus, although the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is assigned in “arising under” words, as was that of the TECA, there is a dispositive difference: 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) and (2) provide that the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction “if the jurisdiction of [the district] court was based, in whole or in part, on [sections 1338 and 1346, respectively] of this title”. The clause “in whole or in part” is absent from the TECA authorization. In Atari, Inc. v. JS & A Group, Inc.,
Paragraph (1) of new section 1295(a) gives the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit jurisdiction of any appeal in which the trial court jurisdiction was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 of title 28.... Cases will be within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the same sense that cases are said to “arise under” federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. Contrast, Coastal States Marketing, Inc. v. New England Petroleum Corp.,604 F.2d 179 (2d Cir.1979).
H.R.Rep. No. 312, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 41 (1981). See Atari,
As we recognize these differences, in the interest of continuity, we affirm that the TECA precedent and practice on jurisdictional matters shall continue to apply to cases that reach the Federal Circuit by virtue of succession to the TECA.
C
On this background, we consider the plausibility of the transfer of this appeal by the Fifth Circuit to the TECA.
In its transfer motion the government argued that it is necessary to apply or interpret the EPAA/ESA in deciding the issue of the bankruptcy classification of the DOE’s claim under ESA section 209. The government pointed out that the TECA has consistently held that it has exclusive jurisdiction of this issue; and that the Fifth Circuit has previously transferred appeals of such issues to the TECA. Texas American argued that this case arises under the bankruptcy law, not the ESA, and urged the TECA to correct its assertion of jurisdiction.
TECA preeedént and that of the regional circuit courts are not in complete accord on whether the bankruptcy classification of a
In view of the TECA’s ruling that its “issue” jurisdiction includes issues relating to ESA claims in bankruptcy proceedings, and our observation that the classification question at bar indeed requires interpretation of the ESA and successor statutes, see Part III, post, we conclude that the transfer of this appeal to the TECA was in accord with TECA precedent. Thus the transfer is plausible in terms of Christianson. The request of Texas American to transfer the appeal back -to the Fifth Circuit must be denied.
Ill
THE BANKRUPTCY APPEAL
On July 2, 1987 Texas American commenced bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. The DOE filed a claim as creditor, based on the DOE’s ruling that a subsidiary of Texas American had received small refiner bias entitlements in violation of section 209 of the ESA as incorporated into section 5(a)(1) of the EPAA, 15 U.S.C. § 754(a)(1). The trustee in bankruptcy classified the claim as a non-pecuniary loss in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(4), and placed the entire claim in Class 9 of the Plan of Liquidation. The liability for and amount of the claim are not now disputed, and the only issue is the classification priority.
The relevant classifications of the Texas American Bankruptcy Committee Plan of Liquidation are as follows:
§ 3.07 Class 7 (Unsecured) Claims — Allowed Claims of unsecured creditors, including without limitation, all Claims asserted by or on behalf of the Debenture-holders.
§. 3.09 Class 9 (Non-Pecuniary Loss) Claims — Allowed Claims of holders of Allowed Claims for any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, or for multiple, exemplary, or punitive damages, as further described in 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(4).
Section 726(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code subordinates non-pecuniary loss claims to the fourth priority:
11 U.S.C. § 726. Distribution of property of the estate
******
(a)(4) fourth, in payment of any allowed claim, whether secured or unsecured, for any fine, penalty or forfeiture ... to the extent that such fine, penalty, or forfeiture or damages are not compensation for actual pecuniary loss suffered by the holder of such claim.
Class 7 claims are superior to Class 9; there are insufficient assets to satisfy any Class 9 claim, or to satisfy fully the Class 7 claims.
The DOE argued that since its claim for recovery under ESA section 209 was for “restitution” it should be classified with the unsecured claims of Class 7. The bankruptcy court, however, agreed with the trustee that Class 9 was the appropriate classification. The bankruptcy court held that since this DOE claim is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss suffered by the holder of the claim — as the government apparently agrees as to all or most of the claim — then it is not a Class 7 claim. Observing that there would be no recovery by or payment to the persons that suffered the pecuniary loss, the bankruptcy court concluded “that this claim must be treated as a fine, penalty or forfeiture [for it] is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss suffered by the holder of the claim”. Record at 27, In re Texas American.
The DOE appealed to the district court, who reversed the bankruptcy court, citing the decision of the TECA in West Texas Marketing that a claim under ESA section 209 was properly placed in the same class and priority as the general unsecured claims of other creditors such as bondholders. The district court held that the TECA’s decision in West Texas Marketing must be followed until overruled by the TECA or the Supreme Court, and therefore that the DOE’s entire claim under section 209 should be classified with Class 7. In Transcontinental Energy the TECA followed its decision in West Texas Marketing, declining to review the asserted intervening statutory and other changes in law. Although the bankruptcy court remarked that in Transcontinental Energy the TECA had not addressed the effect of the intervening Supreme Court decisions in Kelly and Davenport, the district court pointed out that the TECA decisions had not been overruled, and thus were binding on the bankruptcy court.
A
The classification of a claim in bankruptcy is a question of law, and is reviewed for correctness. See In re Lumber Exch. Bldg. Ltd. Partnership,
Texas American argues that there have been significant changes in statutory law and policy since West Texas Marketing was decided in 1985, and urges that the applicability of West Texas Marketing to this claim be reviewed in light of these changes. Texas American refers to the enactment in 1986 of the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and Restitution Act, accompanied by the DOE’s official changes in policy and implementation with respect to disposition of recovered overcharges to the Treasury general fund and to the states, instead of as restitution to those who were overcharged. Texas American states that these changes have controlling consequences for the issue at bar, since at least eighty percent of the DOE’s claim can not be even eolorably viewed as restitution. Texas American also states that the Supreme Court’s analyses of penalty and restitution in bankruptcy in Kelly and in Davenport require that this court ascertain and apply an accurate view of the claimed recovery, in order to determine whether the recovery is for the benefit of individual creditors who suffered the actual pecuniary loss, or for the public at large.
We agree that these statutory, judicial, and policy changes, all occurring after the TECA’s decision in West Texas Marketing, warrant our revisiting the issue.
B
In accordance with the ESA, upon enforcement action brought by the DOE the courts may order restitution of the overpayment that a seller of petroleum products obtained in violation of regulated prices. ESA section 209 provides:
... In addition to such injunctive relief, the court may also order restitution of moneys received in violation of any such order or regulation.
Congress had stressed in enacting the ESA that the explicit reference to restitution in section 209 was to settle any doubt that “there was an inherent equitable power in the court to set things right and order restitution.” S.Rep. No. 92-507, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess. 9, reprinted in 1971 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2283, 2291. The DOE established procedures for the identification of claimants who experienced illegal overcharges, and undertook to
The courts were aware of the mounting problems of achieving the mandated restitution. In United States v. Exxon Corp.,
§ 155(a) It is the purpose of this section to provide the Secretary of Energy the exclusive authority for the disbursement of the designated petroleum violation escrow funds for limited restitutional purposes (1) which are reasonably expected to benefit the class of persons injured by such violations, and (2) which, based on information previously provided to the Congress by the Secretary of Energy are likely not to be, through procedures established by regulation, otherwise refunded to injured persons because the purchasers of the refined petroleum products cannot reasonably be identified or paid or because the amount of each purchaser’s overcharge is too small to be capable of reasonable determination.
In In re Dep’t of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litigation,
Reflecting the increasing accumulation of escrow funds, the Warner Amendment was superseded by the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 (“PODRA”), Pub.L. No. 99-509, Title III, § 3002, 100 Stat. 1881 (1986), codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 4501-4507. In enacting the PO-DRA, Congress referred to the billions of dollars that had accumulated and for which restitution to the persons injured was not possible. The PODRA requires the DOE to reserve sufficient funds to make restitution to those who suffered the actual losses, 15 U.S.C. § 4502(c)(1), and to pay the excess to federal and state treasuries “as indirect restitution”:
15 U.S.C. § 4502(d) Disbursement of excess amount as indirect restitution for energy conservation programs
(1) [T]he Secretary shall promptly provide for the disbursement of a portion or all of such excess amount for use in energy conservation programs. The amount so disbursed for a fiscal year shall be the smaller of—
(A) $200,000,000 minus the amount of Federal funds appropriated for energy conservation programs for such fiscal year; or
(B) the amount determined under subsection (c) of this section to be the excess amount for such fiscal year.
# iH Hí
§ 4503 Deposit of remainder of excess amount into the Treasury as indirect restitution
The amount that remains from the excess amount described in section 4502(c) of this title after all disbursements have been made for the fiscal year under section 4502(d) of this title shall be deposited by the Secretary of the Treasury into the general fund of the Treasury.
The disbursement plan set in the PODRA was a departure from the restitutionary plan of the ESA, in that Congress now authorized distribution to the states and deposit of recovered overcharge funds directly into the general fund of the Treasury. The Committee Report estimated that the PODRA would result in deposit to the federal Treasury of $1.7 billion for fiscal years 1987 through 1989. H.R.Rep. No. 727, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess. 41, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3607, 3637. In implementation, the DOE in 1986 issued a “Statement of Modified Resti-tutionary Policy in Crude Oil Cases”:
Up to 20 percent of the funds will be reserved for payment of claims of eligible parties, and the balance will be divided [by distributing one half to] the states, territories and possessions of the United States, and the [remaining half to the] U.S. Treasury, as indirect restitution to unidentified injured parties.
51 Fed.Reg. 27,899 (1986).
Thus by statute the major portion of the ESA section 209 recovery is now paid to the states and the general fund of the United States Treasury. The DOE argues that this change in beneficiary from those persons who suffered direct pecuniary losses, to the federal and state governments and the partial usage for energy-related purposes, is the “equivalent” of restitution, and thus requires the bankruptcy treatment of this claim as restitution. The DOE states that since the entire nation was damaged by petroleum price overcharges, and the economy generally will benefit from reduction in the national debt, this payment to federal and state governments should be viewed as restitution to the nation.
Texas American points out that the only issue is the bankruptcy classification of the claims of Texas American’s creditors, and that it is the Bankruptcy Code that applies. The Bankruptcy Code requires that the claims of actual out-of-pocket creditors have priority over claims for sums to be paid to public bodies based on wrongdoing of the debtor. Texas American points out that the government is not claiming that it suffered
C
Restitution is an equitable remedy whereby the wrongdoer is required to restore the injured person to the situation that prevailed before the wrong was committed. Restatement of Restitution, §§ ISO-159, Introductory Note (1937). There must be some relationship between the person injured and the recipient of the recovery. See Hughey v. United States,
It is undisputed that no significant restitution has been made or is expected to be made to any person who actually suffered a pecuniary loss due to the small refiner bias overpayments to the Texas American subsidiary company. It is undisputed that at least eighty percent of the recovery will be paid to the federal and state governments. Government has the sole interest in this bankruptcy claim. This is relevant to section 726(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which defines the fourth priority as including recovery of a fine, penalty, or forfeiture, to the extent that such recovery is “not compensation for actual pecuniary loss suffered by the holder of such claim”.
The DOE points out that in West Texas Marketing the TECA held that the “restitutionary character” of the DOE’s recovery under ESA section 209 is unrelated to whether the recovered funds will be distributed to the actual parties who were overcharged.
Congress, the DOE, and the courts all acted for this purpose. The PODRAauthorized disposition of recovered overcharges to governmental treasuries does not require that the federal and state governments suffered a pecuniary loss. Compare the recovery in United States v. P/B STCO 213,
The Bankruptcy Code serves a quite different public purpose. In effecting the principles of creditors’ and debtors’ rights and obligations, one of the firmest of principles is that creditors who suffered a pecuniary loss to the bankrupt have priority of claim over those who suffered no pecuniary loss. See Simonson v. Granquist,
Restitution requires not only disgorgement of illegal profits, but also their return to the persons who suffered the loss. See Kelly,
In discussing the subordination statute, the bankruptcy court in In re Schultz Broadway Inn, Ltd.,
students of bankruptcy law know that all penalties are divided into two categories, i.e., “pecuniaxy loss penalties” and “non pecuniary loss penalties.” ... [I]f such fines or penalties are punitive in nature and not for actual pecuniary loss, they are not given priority but rather are subordinated in order of payment under section 726(a)(4).
See also 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.04[7][h]. These differences have been readily recognized in other contexts. See, e.g., In re Unified Control Sys., Inc.,
In enacting the ESA, Congress intended and required that the recovery be distributed to the persons who were directly injured by the illegal overcharges. When such distribution was recognized as impossible, Congress changed the statute. Although the usage “indirect restitution” in the PODRA provides a certain historical continuity, the words must yield to substance. Applying the PODRA in light of the considerations relevant to the bankruptcy classification requires a realistic assessment of the nature of the claim to the recovery that will be paid to the governmental treasuries. Such an assessment is illustrated in the Supreme Court decisions in Kelly and Davenport. Although these decisions are not as pointed as Texas American urges, they illustrate the principle that remedies styled as “restitution” must be viewed for bankruptcy purposes in light of the particular facts. In Kelly,
Kelly and Davenport thus applied in specific bankruptcy contexts the general principle that the nature of a remedy depends on “whether the wrong sought to be redressed is a wrong to the public, or a wrong to the individual”. Huntington v. Attrill,
The enactment of the PODRA, and other dispositions of the reservoir of unclaimed recovery by the DOE under section 209, did not convert the federal and state governments into out-of-pocket creditors; the PODRA simply established their right to receive the unclaimed recoveries. The non-compensatory portion of the recovery fits the statutory definition of a “forfeiture ... to the extent that such ... forfeiture [is] not compensation for actual pecuniary loss suffered by the holder of such claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(4). It is contrary to bankruptcy principles to grant these residuary donees the same priority of claim, under the bankruptcy laws, as debentureholders and others who suffered an actual pecuniary loss to the bankrupt entity. In accordance with these principles, the consequences of the misconduct of bankrupts should not be visited upon their innocent creditors, which is the effect if non-compensatory penalties and forfeitures are not subordinated to the claims of unsecured creditors. Simonson v. Granquist,
In addition to the enactment of the PO-DRA, the Supreme Court decisions in Kelly and Davenport, clarifying certain principles with respect to restitution and subordination in bankruptcy, all occurred after West Texas Marketing was decided by the TECA. Although Transcontinental Energy was decided thereafter, in that terse opinion the TECA did not discuss any of these changes in law. We conclude that the rulings in West Texas Marketing and Transcontinental Energy are no longer viable, insofar as they relate to the bankruptcy classification of claims under ESA section 209. To the extent that these rulings conflict with our decision herein, they are overruled.
Decision
The DOE’s section 209 claim in these bankruptcy proceedings is properly separated into claims for pecuniary and nonpeeuniary losses. The portion claimed on behalf of identified persons who suffered an actual pecuniary loss, due to the overcharges remedied under section 209, is properly classified in Class 7 of the Plan of Liquidation. The claim for the portion to be paid to the federal and state governments is properly classified in Class 9 of the Plan of Liquidation, for this claim does not represent an actual pecuniary loss to the claimants.
The judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded for classification of the section 209 claim in a manner consistent with this opinion.
Costs
No costs.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Notes
. "Issue" jurisdiction refers to the assignment of jurisdiction limited to a particular issue, whether the issue is raised by complaint or only in the answer. "Case" jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction of all of the issues in the case whenever a particular issue is present, whether that issue is raised by complaint or only in the answer. Traditional “arising under” jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction of all of the issues in a case whenever the jurisdiction-directing issue is raised by weE-pleaded complaint. See Coastal States Marketing, Inc. v. New England Petroleum Corp.,
. The programs set forth in § 155(e)(2) of the Warner Amendment included:
(A) the program under part A of the Energy Conservation and Existing Buildings Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. §§ 6861 et seq.)-,
(B) the programs under part D of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (relating to primary and supplemental state energy conservation programs; 42 U.S.C. §§ 6321 et seq.);
(C) the program under part G of tide III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (relating to state energy conservation for schools and hospitals; 42 U.S.C. §§ 6371 et seq);
(D) the program under the National Energy Extension Service Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7001 et seq); and
(E) the program under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. §§ 8621 et seq).
Concurrence Opinion
with whom NIES, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with those portions of the court’s opinion adopting TECA precedent and TECA’s “issue” jurisdiction, as well as the court’s analysis of the propriety of the Fifth Circuit’s transfer of this ease. I also agree generally that determining the proper bankruptcy classification of the Department of Energy’s (“DOE”) claim against Texas
Moreover, having bound ourselves by TECA precedent, I am not persuaded that the statutory or ease law developments cited by the majority warrant departure from that precedent. In classifying DOE’s § 209 claim under the bankruptcy code, there is no issue of protecting state policy initiatives from unanticipated federal interference, as there was in Kelly v. Robinson,
. The claim at issue in this case is subject to disposition in accordance with the Final Settlement Agreement in In re Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litigation,