
    In the Matter of DAEWOO MOTOR AMERICA, INC., Debtor. Daewoo Motor America, Inc., Reorganized Debtor, Appellant, v. Daewoo Motor, Co., Ltd., Appellee.
    No. 12-56004.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 7, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 11, 2014.
    Carol Chow, Esquire, Theodore B. Stol-man, Esquire, Stutman, Treister & Glatt, PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellant.
    Joshua Eugene Anderson, Esquire, Michelle Beth Goodman, Sally S. Neely, Peter I. Ostroff, Esquire, Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee.
    Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daewoo Motor America (“DMA”), a chapter 11 debtor, seeks review of the district court’s order affirming a bankruptcy court judgment entered in favor of the debtor’s parent and creditor, Daewoo Motor Co., Ltd. (“DWMC”), on DMA’s objection to DWMC’s proof of claim. The bankruptcy court: (1) declined to rechar-acterize debt claimed by DWMC as equity in the debtor; and (2) allowed DWMC to recoup amounts it owed to DMA against DMA’s obligations. We review the bankruptcy court’s decision independently, and we affirm. See In re Dominguez, 51 F.3d 1502, 1506 (9th Cir.1995).

DWMC argues that the bankruptcy court did not have authority to recharac-terize DWMC’s claim as one of equity in the appellant, relying on In re Pacific Express, 69 B.R. 112 (BAP 9th Cir.1986), a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit. This court’s recent opinion in In re Fitness Holdings Int’l, Inc., however, held that bankruptcy courts may recharacterize a debtor’s obligations to reflect the nature of the obligation under state law, rejecting Pacific Express’s strict limitation to equitable subordination under 11 U.S.C. § 510(c). 714 F.3d 1141, 1147 (9th Cir.2013).

The Fitness Holdings decision directs that, in distinguishing between debt and equity, the applicable authority is state law. 714 F.3d at 1148. The parties agree that, in this case, the governing state law is identical to the multi-factor test used by the lower courts. Based on this agreement, we proceed to a review of the merits.

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in denying DMA’s request to recharacterize DWMC’s obligations. See In re AutoStyle Plastics, Inc., 269 F.3d 726 (6th Cir.2001); Hardman v. United States, 827 F.2d 1409, 1411-12 (9th Cir.1987). The bankruptcy court’s determination that the obligations were debts was supported by the parties’ agreements, the contemporaneous documentation evidencing the transactions, and DMA’s statements to third parties, including its own auditors.

The bankruptcy court also did not abuse its discretion in allowing DWMC to recoup its debt against that owed to DWMC by DMA, since the obligations arose from the same agreements. See Newbery Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 1392, 1399 (9th Cir.1996).

Finally, we deny as moot DWMC’s request to dismiss or to summarily affirm this appeal.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     