Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Two individuals entered into a loan agreement and mortgage with a bank in Puerto Rico, using their home as collateral. After a decade, they faced financial difficulties and stopped making payments. The bank denied a request to modify the loan but proposed a short sale. The bank then initiated foreclosure proceedings in Puerto Rico’s Court of First Instance, resulting in a judgment against the borrowers. Multiple short sale offers were rejected until one was conditionally accepted, but the sale did not close in time and the home was foreclosed. Subsequently, the bank garnished funds from the borrowers, who then filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico confirmed the borrowers’ Chapter 13 plan, noting their intent to pursue claims against the bank. The borrowers filed an adversary proceeding seeking damages and other relief. The bank moved to dismiss the adversary complaint, but the bankruptcy court denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed. The borrowers later filed a similar complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and moved to withdraw the adversary proceeding to the district court. The district court denied the withdrawal as untimely and dismissed the separate federal case. After the borrowers completed their bankruptcy plan and received a discharge, the bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the bankruptcy court erred in finding it automatically lost jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding post-discharge. The appellate court vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower courts to reassess jurisdiction and properly address the borrowers’ motion for withdrawal and their jury trial request. View "Guallini-Indij v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

Richard and Lucia Parks, along with their family real estate business Parks Diversified, L.P. and related entities, became involved in a legal dispute after their son, David Klein, filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on behalf of Parks Diversified. The Parkses asserted that Klein did not have the authority to file the petition and claimed he did so as part of a scheme to take control of family assets. Despite these objections, the parties entered into a stipulation to dismiss the bankruptcy case, with the Parkses waiving certain claims. Later, the Parkses and their entities filed a complaint in California state court against Klein and others, alleging various causes of action related to the alleged unauthorized bankruptcy filing.Following this, the law firm representing some of the defendants requested the bankruptcy court to reopen the case, and the state court complaint was removed to the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim and granted special motions to strike. On appeal, the United States District Court for the Central District of California found that the bankruptcy court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, holding that the issue of corporate authority to file a bankruptcy petition was not jurisdictional. The district court remanded with instructions to vacate orders where jurisdiction was lacking and to remand remaining claims to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that, consistent with precedents from the Second and Third Circuits, a lack of corporate authority to file a bankruptcy petition does not deprive the bankruptcy court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that while proper authorization is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional, and thus affirmed the lower court’s conclusion on this point. View "TALON DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS INC. V. BECKER" on Justia Law

Steven and Virginia Savage were officers and sole shareholders of a company that designed and installed digital planetarium equipment. When their company experienced financial distress, they used personal funds and credit cards to support business operations, but the company eventually defaulted on a large loan personally guaranteed by the Savages. In the year preceding their bankruptcy filing, the Savages received over $700,000 from the company, which they failed to fully disclose in their bankruptcy filings. Their bankruptcy schedules did not mention this income, and significant portions of the transferred funds were not satisfactorily explained, especially regarding rent payments from the company to the Savages and the use of those funds.After the company and the Savages filed for bankruptcy, the creditor, Coastal Capital, objected to the Savages’ discharge in their Chapter 7 proceedings. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire held a bench trial and found that, although the Savages explained most of the company funds they received, they failed to account for over $56,000. The court denied the Savages a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(5) for failing to satisfactorily explain the loss or deficiency of assets. The Savages’ post-trial motions were denied, and the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that § 727(a)(5) does not require a “substantial” loss of assets to deny discharge, nor does it require that the unaccounted-for funds be enough to pay all liabilities. It also found no clear error in the bankruptcy court’s factual determinations and rejected the Savages’ arguments regarding destruction of evidence and the sufficiency of their explanations. The denial of discharge was affirmed. View "Coastal Capital, LLC v. Savage" on Justia Law

An investment fund specializing in gems and minerals filed for bankruptcy in October 2019. Prior to this, one of the fund’s managing members, through his own companies, had engaged a law firm to represent him and his separate business interests in connection with federal investigations and anticipated arbitration involving the fund and its leadership. The law firm’s engagement letters were addressed to the individual and his other company, not the fund itself, and did not state that the fund was responsible for payment. Some of the legal work benefited all respondents, including the fund, and the fund issued two checks to the law firm. However, a significant balance remained unpaid.During the bankruptcy proceedings, the law firm filed a claim against the fund for unpaid legal fees. The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, appointed to represent the fund’s equity holders, objected, arguing the fund was not liable for the debt. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the Equity Committee, finding the fund had no obligation to pay the law firm based on the evidence presented. The law firm appealed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s affirmance de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the law firm had not provided sufficient evidence of an enforceable promise by the fund to pay the legal fees, either as a primary obligor or under promissory estoppel. Additionally, the court found that neither Wisconsin’s statutory indemnification provision for LLC managers and members nor the fund’s operating agreement extended indemnification rights to the individual who had retained the law firm. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Ballard Spahr LLP v Official Committee of Equity Security Holders" on Justia Law

A steel subcontractor was hired to perform work for a university construction project and entered into a subcontract with the general contractor. The general contractor began defaulting on payments, prompting the subcontractor to notify the surety insurance company, which had issued a payment bond guaranteeing payment for labor, materials, and equipment. The surety made partial payment but disputed the remaining amount. The subcontractor then demanded arbitration against the contractor, with the surety notified and invited to participate. The contractor filed for bankruptcy and did not defend in arbitration, nor did the surety participate. The arbitrator awarded the subcontractor damages, including attorneys’ fees and interest, and the award was confirmed in court. The subcontractor sought to enforce the arbitration award against the surety, including attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest, and also brought a bad faith claim under Pennsylvania’s insurance statute.The Centre County Court of Common Pleas initially excluded evidence of the arbitration award against the surety at trial and ruled the surety was not liable for attorneys’ fees or bad faith damages. A jury found for the subcontractor on the underlying debt, and the court awarded prejudgment interest at the statutory rate. Both parties appealed. The Superior Court held the arbitration award was binding and conclusive against the surety, who had notice and opportunity to participate, and affirmed liability for attorneys’ fees related to pursuing the contractor in arbitration. The court rejected the bad faith claim, holding the statute did not apply to surety bonds, and confirmed the statutory interest rate.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed in all respects. It held that Pennsylvania’s insurance bad faith statute does not apply to surety bonds, based on statutory language. The court also held that the surety is bound by the arbitration award against its principal, and is liable for attorneys’ fees incurred in arbitration and prejudgment interest at the statutory rate. View "Eastern Steel v. Int Fidelity Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Thomas O’Hara filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in early 2024. When the United States Trustee sought to dismiss his case, the bankruptcy court held a hearing and indicated it would convert the case to Chapter 7, unless O’Hara exercised his right to voluntarily dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(b) before the conversion order was entered. O’Hara did not file a motion to dismiss until after the bankruptcy court entered an order converting the case. His subsequent attempt to dismiss under § 1307(b) was denied, as was his later motion under Rule 60(b), in which he argued his delay should be excused as neglect and that his right to dismiss was circumvented.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan reviewed the bankruptcy court’s orders. The district court concluded that O’Hara’s appeals regarding the conversion and denial of dismissal were untimely, except for his timely appeal of the bankruptcy court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court, finding O’Hara’s Rule 60(b) motion meritless, as the case had already been converted before his dismissal motion was filed, and found no excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s affirmance. It held that its jurisdiction was limited to review of the August 7 order denying Rule 60(b) relief, as only that appeal was timely. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief, because O’Hara’s failure to seek dismissal prior to conversion was a strategic decision, not excusable neglect, and his right to dismiss under § 1307(b) ceased once the case was converted. The court affirmed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "O'Hara v. Vara" on Justia Law

This case involves individuals who filed asbestos-related tort claims against DBMP LLC. The claims arise from injuries allegedly caused by asbestos-containing products manufactured by CertainTeed Corporation over several decades. Facing a growing number of lawsuits and significant financial exposure, CertainTeed underwent a "divisional merger" under Texas law, splitting into two entities: New CertainTeed, which received most assets and non-asbestos liabilities, and DBMP, which received all asbestos-related liabilities and certain assets. An uncapped funding agreement obligated New CertainTeed to cover DBMP’s asbestos liabilities. DBMP then filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, invoking 11 U.S.C. § 524(g) to manage current and future asbestos claims through a trust. As a result, pending tort actions were automatically stayed.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied motions from the plaintiffs to lift the automatic stay and to stay a preliminary injunction that extended the stay to CertainTeed affiliates. Applying the standards from In re Robbins, the bankruptcy court found that lifting the stay would prejudice the debtor’s estate, harm judicial economy by returning a large volume of cases to the tort system, and undermine consistent treatment of claimants under a § 524(g) plan. The bankruptcy court also found insufficient evidence of bad faith by DBMP in filing for bankruptcy. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court’s findings and application of the Robbins factors were not an abuse of discretion.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to lift the automatic stay. It found that DBMP sought bankruptcy protection for legitimate purposes under § 524(g), was not shown to have acted in bad faith, and that the statutory framework does not require insolvency. View "Herlihy v. DBMP, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who provided subadvisory investment services and loaned $1.5 million to FolioMetrix (personally guaranteed by two individuals), later engaged with defendants involved in a proposed merger of investment firms. Plaintiffs alleged that during merger negotiations, defendant Putnam promised to relieve the original borrowers of their obligations and personally assume the debt. Subsequent communications referenced intentions to transfer the loan liability to the new entity, but when plaintiffs sought a formal promissory note, defendants refused. Ultimately, defendants did not repay any portion of the loan.Plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco in March 2019, alleging breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. At trial, the central dispute was whether defendants had agreed to assume the loan obligations under the promissory note. Plaintiffs argued that the agreement was formed through emails and conduct, while defendants denied any assumption of liability. The jury found in favor of defendants, determining no contract was formed and no promise was made to repay the loans. Following trial, the court awarded defendants attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717, based on a fee provision in the original promissory note, after reducing the requested amount.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, addressed several issues. It ruled that the automatic bankruptcy stay did not preclude resolution of the appeal because the debtor (NAI) was the plaintiff rather than a defendant. The court rejected plaintiffs’ claims of error regarding jury instructions on contract formation, finding insufficient argument and no prejudice. It affirmed the attorney fee award, concluding the action was “on the contract” containing the fee provision, and held the fee amount was within the trial court’s discretion. The judgment and fee order were affirmed. View "Navellier v. Putnam" on Justia Law

A debtor filed for bankruptcy in 2017 and retained an attorney to serve as counsel in the Chapter 11 proceedings. The bankruptcy court appointed the attorney as counsel for the estate. In early 2018, a trustee was appointed due to concerns about liens on the debtor’s properties, and the trustee began liquidating assets. Following these events, the debtor sued her former bankruptcy attorney and his law firm in California state court for legal malpractice related to the bankruptcy representation.In state court, the attorney moved to dismiss the malpractice suit, arguing that the Barton doctrine, res judicata, and lack of standing barred the action. The Los Angeles County Superior Court dismissed the suit solely based on the Barton doctrine, which requires leave from the bankruptcy court before suing court-appointed officers in another forum. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that the Barton doctrine applied to claims arising from the attorney’s actions while serving as debtor-in-possession counsel but not to actions taken after the trustee’s appointment. The appellate court allowed leave to amend for certain post-trustee claims if standing was established.The debtor then moved in bankruptcy court for leave to continue her malpractice suit under the Barton doctrine. The bankruptcy court granted leave for certain time periods but did not precisely tailor its order to the state appellate decision. The attorney appealed to the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), which vacated the bankruptcy court’s order, holding it violated the Rooker-Feldman doctrine by modifying state court judgments. On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that granting Barton leave does not violate Rooker-Feldman, and the bankruptcy court may cure a jurisdictional defect after state court proceedings have begun. However, the Ninth Circuit found the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by not aligning its order with the state appellate decision and by granting Barton approval for claims not subject to the doctrine. The Ninth Circuit reversed the BAP, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions for the bankruptcy court to issue a tailored order consistent with the California appellate decision. View "Akhlaghpour v. Orantes" on Justia Law

Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC initiated bankruptcy proceedings in 2014 and brought an adversary action against Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. to recover $50,000 in unpaid invoices. Vista-Pro attempted to serve Coney Island by mail but allegedly did not comply with the required service rules. Coney Island did not respond, leading the Bankruptcy Court to enter a default judgment in 2015. Over the next six years, the bankruptcy trustee sought to enforce the judgment, including notifying Coney Island’s CEO of the judgment in 2016. In 2021, a marshal seized funds from Coney Island’s bank account to satisfy the judgment, prompting Coney Island to seek relief from the judgment, alleging it was void due to improper service.The United States Bankruptcy Court denied Coney Island’s motion to vacate the judgment, finding that Coney Island failed to meet the requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) that such motions be brought within a “reasonable time.” The United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both affirmed this decision, agreeing that the reasonable-time limit applied to motions alleging a void judgment.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case to resolve a split among lower courts over whether the reasonable-time requirement of Rule 60(c)(1) applies to motions under Rule 60(b)(4) claiming a judgment is void. The Court held that the plain language and structure of Rule 60 make the reasonable-time requirement applicable to all Rule 60(b) motions, including those asserting voidness. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit, concluding that motions for relief from allegedly void judgments must be made within a reasonable time. View "Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton" on Justia Law