Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

TAJ Graphics Enterprises, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company controlled by Robert Kattula, twice filed for bankruptcy—first in 2003 under Chapter 11, and again in 2009, with the case later converted to Chapter 7. Prime Financial, Inc., an unsecured creditor owned by Aaron Jade, asserted a claim based on unpaid sums from the 2004 bankruptcy plan. Disputes arose over several assets, including rights under assignments, claims in pending litigation, and a significant debt owed by Kattula to TAJ. Ownership and value of these assets, particularly interests under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for a Kentucky landfill, were contested. The bankruptcy estate lacked funds to litigate asset ownership or liquidation.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan approved a settlement proposed by the Chapter 7 trustee. The settlement involved Kattula waiving certain claims and paying $50,000 to the estate in exchange for ownership of the disputed assets. The IRS, the estate's senior secured creditor, supported the settlement. Prime Financial objected, arguing the trustee failed to maximize the estate’s value and that its own offer to purchase assets for $100,000 was overlooked. The bankruptcy court found Prime Financial’s offer contingent and unworkable, and determined that litigation over asset ownership would be costly and uncertain. The bankruptcy court approved the settlement, citing the estate’s lack of resources, the speculative asset value, and the interests of creditors. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan affirmed this decision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's order. The Sixth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion, applying the correct standard for settlement approval and reasonably assessing the merits, complexity, and creditor interests. Prime Financial’s procedural and substantive objections were rejected. View "Prime Financial, Inc. v. Shapiro" on Justia Law

HRT Enterprises pursued a takings claim against the City of Detroit after losing a jury verdict in state court in 2005. Subsequently, HRT filed suit in federal court in 2008, alleging a post-2005 violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the federal action, citing the requirement from Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), to exhaust state remedies first. HRT then returned to state court, where its claim was dismissed on claim preclusion grounds, a decision affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals. After the state court denied compensation, HRT initiated a federal § 1983 action in 2012. The case was stayed when the City filed for bankruptcy, prompting HRT to participate in bankruptcy proceedings to protect its compensation rights. Ultimately, the bankruptcy court excepted HRT’s takings claim from discharge, allowing the federal case to proceed. After two jury trials, the district court entered judgment for HRT in September 2023.Following its success, HRT moved for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, presenting billing records that included work from related state and bankruptcy proceedings. The district court applied a 33% discount to the claimed hours due to commingled and poorly described entries, set an average hourly rate, and awarded $720,486.25, which included expert witness fees. Both parties appealed aspects of the fee award to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred by concluding it had no discretion to award fees for work performed in the related state-court and bankruptcy proceedings, as such fees are recoverable when the work is necessary to advance the federal litigation. The court also found the district court erred in awarding expert witness fees under § 1988(c) in a § 1983 action, as the statute does not authorize such fees for § 1983 claims. The appellate court vacated the fee award and remanded for recalculation consistent with its opinion. View "HRT Enterprises v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

Jet Oilfield Services was formed in 2018 by three individuals, with Brian Owen later acquiring a substantial membership interest. Jet’s governing agreement required Owen to obtain consent from at least one other member before entering transactions on Jet’s behalf. In 2022, Owen signed an agreement with Spin Capital, L.L.C., under which Jet would sell $4,500,000 of future receivables for $3,000,000. Spin attempted to confirm Owen’s authority by reviewing Jet’s bank statements and tax returns, noting Owen’s access to the company’s accounts and his designation as “Partnership Representative” and “General Partner or LLC member-manager,” though the tax return was unsigned by a member-manager. Jet subsequently filed for bankruptcy, and Spin filed a proof of claim based on this agreement and pursued related litigation.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas held a trial on Jet’s counterclaims against Spin. The court found that Owen lacked both actual and apparent authority to bind Jet in the Spin Agreement and that Jet received no consideration for the contract. As a result, the bankruptcy court determined Spin’s claim was unenforceable. Spin appealed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Initially, the district court dismissed the appeal for an insufficient record but later reinstated it, allowing supplemental briefing. When Spin declined to submit further briefing, the district court dismissed the appeal with prejudice.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied clear error review to the bankruptcy court’s factual findings and de novo review to its legal conclusions. The Fifth Circuit held that Owen did not have apparent authority to bind Jet, as Jet’s member-managers did not hold him out as an agent, and Spin’s reliance on Owen’s asserted authority was unreasonable. The court thus affirmed the judgment, holding that Spin’s claim against Jet was unenforceable. View "Spin Capital v. Jet Oilfield" on Justia Law

A fire at a property in Washington, D.C. in 2015 resulted in the deaths of two tenants. The parents of the tenants sued both the property’s record owner, Len Salas, and his father, Max Salas, who managed the property, for wrongful death in a D.C. trial court. The jury found both defendants jointly and severally liable and awarded multimillion-dollar verdicts. After the verdict, both Len and Max filed for bankruptcy in different jurisdictions. In Max’s bankruptcy case, the court held he was entitled to an unlimited homestead exemption in the property. Subsequently, in Len’s bankruptcy case in Tennessee, the estate’s interest in certain avoidance and recovery rights under the Bankruptcy Code was sold at auction, with the plaintiffs purchasing those rights.The plaintiffs then filed an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, seeking to avoid transfers and recover property. The bankruptcy court denied their motion for summary judgment and granted partial summary judgment to Max on the fraudulent conveyance claims. Plaintiffs sought and received leave from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to pursue an interlocutory appeal. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s partial grant and denial of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, but did not certify the order for appeal or designate it as a final order.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction. The court determined that because the district court’s order was neither final nor properly certified for interlocutory appeal, it could not exercise appellate jurisdiction under the relevant statutes. As a result, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Brekelmans v. Salas" on Justia Law

The case involves a Florida-based title insurer that suffered significant financial setbacks, prompting a series of business restructurings and asset transfers. In 2009, the company entered a joint venture with another title insurance group, forming a new entity to handle certain business functions. Over subsequent years, the original company retained substantial assets and continued operations, but further financial decline led to a 2015 agreement in which it transferred assets and liabilities to its business partner, in exchange for the assumption of its policy liabilities. The Florida insurance regulator scrutinized and ultimately approved the transaction after requiring additional commitments from the acquiring party.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida later oversaw the company’s Chapter 11 proceedings. The appointed Creditor Trustee brought an adversary proceeding against the acquiring parties and related entities, alleging that the asset transfer constituted a fraudulent transfer under federal bankruptcy law and Florida statutes, and sought to impose successor liability and alter ego claims. The bankruptcy court held a bench trial, excluding portions of the Trustee’s expert valuation as unreliable, and found that the company had received reasonably equivalent value in the transaction. The court also rejected the successor liability and alter ego theories, finding insufficient evidence of continuity of ownership, improper purpose, or harm to creditors.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida affirmed the bankruptcy court’s rulings. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the record and affirmed the district court’s order. The Eleventh Circuit held that the bankruptcy court did not err in excluding the Trustee’s expert, that the asset transfer was for reasonably equivalent value and not fraudulent, and that the successor liability and alter ego claims failed for lack of evidence and legal sufficiency. View "Stermer v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Lewis Patrick and Michele Sivertson owned and managed Laughing Dog Brewing, Inc. (LDB), which faced financial difficulties in 2017. To address these issues, they, along with affiliated entities AHR, LLC and Fetchingly Good, LLC, engaged attorney Ford Elsaesser to restructure their debt. Elsaesser drafted a promissory note and facilitated the transfer of LDB’s assets to AHR and Fetchingly Good, allegedly without disclosing conflicts of interest or legal risks. After the asset transfer, Fetchingly Good assumed LDB’s operations, and LDB filed for bankruptcy. Acorn Investments, LLC, a creditor with a judgment against LDB, sued the Original Plaintiffs under various theories, including the Idaho Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and racketeering statutes.The litigation between Acorn and the Original Plaintiffs was resolved through a settlement agreement. The Original Plaintiffs stipulated to a judgment in favor of Acorn, but Acorn agreed not to execute on the judgment. Instead, Acorn received an assignment of the Original Plaintiffs’ claims against Elsaesser, including legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Acorn substituted as plaintiff in the malpractice case. Elsaesser moved for summary judgment, arguing that the malpractice claim was not assignable. The District Court of the First Judicial District, Bonner County, agreed and dismissed the case without prejudice, finding the assignment did not meet the exception for assignability established in St. Luke’s Magic Valley Regional Medical Center v. Luciani.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that the assignment of the legal malpractice claim to Acorn did not fall within the Luciani exception, which allows assignment only when such claims are transferred as part of a larger commercial transaction involving other business assets and liabilities. Here, only the claims were assigned, not any business assets or obligations. The Court also declined to award attorney fees to either party, but awarded costs to Elsaesser. View "Acorn Investments, LLC v. Elsaesser" on Justia Law

In August 2019, a company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, with its only assets being three properties occupied by its sole member and two affiliates. Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. obtained judgments against these affiliates and initiated an adversary proceeding against the debtor, seeking to hold it liable for the affiliates’ obligations. During this process, the bankruptcy trustee filed a separate adversary proceeding to recover unpaid rent from one affiliate. A settlement was reached in which Arrowhead received assignment of claims against the affiliates in exchange for releasing its own claims. The bankruptcy court approved this settlement, retaining jurisdiction over the assigned claims. Arrowhead then intervened and obtained a final judgment against the affiliates, including Royal Street Bistro, LLC (RSB).After the bankruptcy court entered judgment, RSB and another affiliate filed a notice of appeal but failed to attach a copy of the judgment as required by the bankruptcy rules. The bankruptcy court clerk issued a deficiency notice, and the corrected notice was filed ten days after the deadline. Arrowhead moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the failure to timely attach the judgment deprived the district court of jurisdiction. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed the appeal, holding that the defect was jurisdictional and, alternatively, that dismissal was warranted as a discretionary sanction for noncompliance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that failure to attach the judgment to the notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect under the bankruptcy rules, and that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the appeal without considering lesser sanctions or the absence of prejudice. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Royal Street Bistro v. Arrowhead Capital" on Justia Law

After Dallas Commodity Company obtained a $1.5 million state court judgment against Joseph F. Langston, Jr. and the Langston Family Limited Partnership, Langston filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He claimed exemptions for two Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) worth over $500,000. The bankruptcy trustee repeatedly continued the creditors’ meeting (the “341 meeting”) to allow Langston to provide additional documents. The final 341 meeting occurred on May 26, 2021, after which the trustee failed to file a statement specifying the adjourned date and time as required by Bankruptcy Rule 2003(e). Despite this, the parties continued to communicate and negotiate, with Langston amending his bankruptcy schedules and entering into an agreed order with the trustees to abate related litigation until exemption objections were resolved.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas overruled Langston’s objection that Dallas Commodity’s challenge to his claimed exemptions was untimely, even though the objection was filed more than 30 days after the last 341 meeting. The bankruptcy court found that Langston had agreed to the continuance and had not objected to the process until after the objection was filed. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed, applying the Fifth Circuit’s prior case law and finding the objection timely under a case-by-case approach.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that, although the trustee failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2003(e), Langston had waived his right to object to the timeliness of Dallas Commodity’s exemption challenge by agreeing to the continuance and benefiting from the additional time. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the bankruptcy court properly overruled Langston’s timeliness objection on the basis of waiver. View "Langston v. Dallas Commodity Co." on Justia Law

A group of companies that are frequently sued in asbestos litigation brought an action against several settlement trusts and a claims processing facility. These trusts were established as part of bankruptcy reorganizations by former asbestos manufacturers to handle and pay out current and future asbestos-related claims. The plaintiffs rely on information held by these trusts—specifically, data about claimants’ other asbestos exposures—to defend themselves in ongoing and anticipated lawsuits. In January 2025, the trusts announced new document retention policies that would result in the destruction of most existing claims data after one year, which the plaintiffs argued would severely impair their ability to defend against asbestos claims and seek contribution or indemnification from the trusts.Previously, the trusts notified claimants of the impending data destruction, and the plaintiffs, upon learning of this, requested that the trusts not implement the new policies. When the trusts refused, the plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, seeking a declaratory judgment that the trusts have a duty to preserve the claims data and a permanent injunction to prevent the destruction of this information. The trusts moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that the complaint failed to state a claim.The Court of Chancery denied the motions to dismiss. It held that it had subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and because the case fit within the court’s traditional equitable powers, including the authority to grant a bill of discovery to preserve evidence for use in litigation. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing, as they faced a concrete and imminent injury from the threatened destruction of data essential to their defense and contribution claims. The court also held that the complaint stated a claim for relief, allowing the case to proceed beyond the pleading stage. View "DBMP LLC v. Delaware Claims Processing Facility, LLC" on Justia Law

Sanchez Energy Corporation, a gas producer, underwent Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 due to significant debt, with its reorganization plan confirmed in April 2020. The company, later renamed Mesquite Energy, Inc., owned valuable fossil fuel reserves in the Comanche Field, Texas, and had several high-cost contracts for gathering, processing, transporting, and marketing natural gas and natural gas liquids. Carnero G&P, L.L.C., a midstream services provider, had a contract with Sanchez to serve as a backup provider. After Sanchez’s reorganization, Mesquite entered into new agreements with other parties to lower its midstream costs, which Carnero claimed breached its surviving contract.Following the bankruptcy, Carnero filed a state court lawsuit against Mesquite and other parties, asserting state law claims based on the new agreements. The suit was removed to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, which denied Carnero’s request to remand and ultimately dismissed the case on the pleadings, finding it had “related-to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334. The bankruptcy court reasoned that the dispute pertained to the implementation of the reorganization plan and that Carnero was barred from challenging the new agreements due to its failure to object during the bankruptcy proceedings. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the jurisdictional question de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court lacked post-confirmation “related-to” jurisdiction over Carnero’s state law contract claims, as the dispute did not pertain to the implementation or execution of the reorganization plan. The court found that the new agreements were not executory contracts under the plan and that Carnero was not barred from pursuing its claims. The Fifth Circuit reversed the lower courts’ judgments and remanded the case with instructions to remand to state court. View "Carnero G&P v. SN EF Maverick" on Justia Law