Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

The case concerns actions taken by the former CEO of a prominent cryptocurrency exchange and a related trading firm. The defendant, who exercised substantial control over both entities, was accused of misappropriating billions of dollars of customer funds. These funds, which customers believed would be safely held and used only for authorized transactions, were instead funneled to the trading firm and used for various unauthorized purposes, including investments, political contributions, and purchases of real estate. The collapse of cryptocurrency markets in 2022, followed by a rapid loss of customer confidence and mass withdrawals, ultimately led to the bankruptcy of both the exchange and the trading firm.After the bankruptcy, the defendant was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on several counts of fraud and conspiracy. The government’s case was supported by testimony from the defendant’s close associates, who described how the defendant orchestrated the transfer and misuse of customer funds, and by business records and communications. The defendant argued that he believed all customers would ultimately be repaid and that he acted in good faith. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to 25 years in prison, imposed a three-year term of supervised release, and ordered a forfeiture of approximately $11 billion.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the defendant challenged the district court’s evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, discovery-related decisions, and the forfeiture order. The Second Circuit held that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, instructions, or discovery decisions, and that the forfeiture was authorized and not constitutionally excessive. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "U.S. v. Bankman-Fried" on Justia Law

Two individuals attended a demonstration in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on May 1, 2018, where they allege that officers of the Puerto Rico Police Bureau used excessive force against them, including the use of tear gas and rubber bullets. In April 2019, they filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, asserting violations of their constitutional rights and seeking both injunctive and monetary relief. The suits named the then-Governor and other officials and employees of the Commonwealth, including police officers, as defendants, with claims brought against some defendants in their personal capacities.During this time, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was undergoing bankruptcy-like restructuring under Title III of PROMESA, and, in 2022, the Title III court confirmed a Plan of Adjustment, which discharged certain claims against the Commonwealth and enjoined pursuit of those claims. The district court stayed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit pending a determination of whether the Plan discharged their claims. On September 30, 2025, the Title III court held that the Plan did not discharge personal-capacity claims against Commonwealth officials or employees, thus allowing the plaintiffs to proceed. The Financial Oversight and Management Board appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the Title III court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court held that the discharge and related injunction in the confirmed Plan of Adjustment do not apply to claims against Commonwealth officers or employees sued in their personal capacities. The court reasoned that discharging such claims would amount to a non-consensual third-party release, which the Plan expressly does not provide. Accordingly, the First Circuit affirmed the Title III court’s decision in full. View "Hernandez Zorilla v. FOMB" on Justia Law

Thomas Keathley and his wife filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in December 2019. During the bankruptcy proceedings, they were required to disclose all assets, including any claims against third parties. In August 2021, while the bankruptcy case was still open, Keathley was involved in a car accident with an employee of Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. He hired a personal injury attorney and told his bankruptcy counsel that he intended to file a lawsuit, but neither he nor his counsel disclosed this potential claim to the Bankruptcy Court. Later, Keathley filed a negligence lawsuit in federal district court without updating his bankruptcy disclosures.Buddy Ayers Construction moved for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi based on judicial estoppel, arguing Keathley was barred from bringing the lawsuit because he had not disclosed the claim to the Bankruptcy Court. When faced with the motion, Keathley amended his bankruptcy filings to include the claim and submitted affidavits asserting the omission was inadvertent. The District Court, following Fifth Circuit precedent, granted summary judgment for Buddy Ayers Construction, finding the omission was not inadvertent because Keathley knew of the facts and had a potential motive to conceal the claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, though a concurring judge questioned whether this approach furthered the goals of judicial estoppel.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that courts must examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a debtor’s omission in bankruptcy was inadvertent or mistaken for purposes of judicial estoppel. The Court found that the Fifth Circuit’s rule—which considered only whether the debtor knew of the claim and had a motive to conceal—was too rigid and overly broad for an equitable doctrine. The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Two individuals filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions, each proposing repayment plans that prioritized payment of their attorneys’ fees before distributing funds to nonpriority unsecured creditors, such as the City of Chicago. Both debtors had below-median incomes and lived in Illinois. One plan proposed to pay secured and priority creditors, the trustee, and attorneys’ fees, with any leftover funds distributed pro rata to nonpriority unsecured creditors. The other plan left no remaining funds for nonpriority unsecured creditors after paying attorneys’ fees.The City of Chicago objected to both plans in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The City argued that these plans violated 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) because they allocated projected disposable income to attorneys’ fees, claiming that bankruptcy attorneys are not unsecured creditors, and thus should not receive such payments. Alternatively, the City argued that even if attorneys are unsecured creditors, they were ineligible for payment because they had not filed proofs of claim. The bankruptcy court overruled the City’s objections, confirming both plans. The court adopted its reasoning from previous cases, finding that attorneys’ fees could be paid during the commitment period and that attorneys did not need to file proofs of claim for payment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that Chapter 13 plans may provide for the payment of attorneys’ fees before or at the same time as payments to nonpriority unsecured creditors during the commitment period, as required by other sections of the Bankruptcy Code. The court also held that bankruptcy attorneys, as holders of administrative priority claims, are not required to file proofs of claim to receive payment under the plan. View "City of Chicago v Falkner" on Justia Law

Milton Thomas filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2004, listing the City of Philadelphia as a creditor for liens on several properties. Thomas used a lawful process to reduce (“cram down”) the value of the City’s claims and had a bankruptcy plan confirmed in 2005, after which a discharge order was issued in 2009. Despite receiving notice of the proceedings and participating in them by filing claims, the City later sought to collect on liens relating to two properties, the 1618 Property and the 1620 Property, which Thomas argued violated the discharge order.After the discharge, the City began collection actions in state court for these properties. Thomas sought relief in federal court, claiming the City’s actions violated the bankruptcy discharge. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania initially found for Thomas, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated that decision, instructing that only the Bankruptcy Court could address contempt allegations. On remand, the Bankruptcy Court declined to hold the City in contempt, relying on its earlier 2013 sua sponte ruling that the City had not received constitutionally adequate notice. The District Court affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The Third Circuit held that the City had actual notice of the bankruptcy and discharge orders and that the 2013 Bankruptcy Court ruling did not provide a reasonable basis for the City’s subsequent conduct. The court found that civil contempt sanctions were warranted as to the 1618 Property, but not the 1620 Property, because Thomas had not shown he met his payment obligations for the latter. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings to determine damages for the 1618 Property. View "Thomas v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

A robotics company, whose primary product is a well-known robot vacuum, agreed in August 2022 to be acquired by a major online retailer. Over the next eighteen months, the companies sought approval for the merger from regulatory authorities in the United States and Europe. In January 2024, facing significant regulatory obstacles, the parties abandoned the merger. Following this, shareholders of the robotics company, led by an investment fund, brought a securities fraud class action against the company’s CEO and CFO. They alleged that during the merger’s review period, company statements misrepresented or omitted material information regarding the likelihood of regulatory approval, particularly concerning the company’s expectation of approval and the acquirer’s cooperation with regulators.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to identify any actionable material misrepresentation or omission and did not adequately allege scienter (the intent or knowledge of wrongdoing). During the appeal, the robotics company entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, resulting in its dismissal from the appeal, which continued as to the individual defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed with the district court that the complaint failed to state a claim for most of the statements challenged by the plaintiffs, affirming dismissal as to those. However, the court found that the amended complaint plausibly alleged that an August 24, 2023, proxy statement expressed an opinion about expected regulatory approval while omitting important contrary information regarding European regulatory concerns and the acquirer’s refusal to cooperate. This omission, in the circumstances, was sufficient to state a claim as to that statement. The dismissal was reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Premca Extra Income Fund LP v. Angle" on Justia Law

An employee was injured at his workplace by a forklift operated by someone he believed worked for his employer, but later learned was employed by a staffing agency. Shortly after the accident, he filed a workers’ compensation claim and entered Chapter 13 bankruptcy, disclosing only the workers’ compensation claim and not any potential third-party claim related to the injury. The bankruptcy case was eventually dismissed without discharge. Over a year after the dismissal, the injured employee initiated a personal injury lawsuit against the staffing agency and the forklift operator in state court.The Circuit Court of DeSoto County granted summary judgment to the staffing agency, finding that the plaintiff was judicially estopped from pursuing the personal injury claim because he failed to disclose it during bankruptcy proceedings. The court found all elements of judicial estoppel satisfied, including the court’s acceptance of the plaintiff’s prior position. The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed this decision, relying on federal precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, specifically Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Oparaji (In re Oparaji), which holds that dismissal of a bankruptcy case without discharge revokes the bankruptcy court’s acceptance of any inconsistent position.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case on certiorari. The Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly applied the law and followed Fifth Circuit precedent. The Supreme Court determined that dismissal without discharge returns the parties to their pre-bankruptcy positions, revoking any judicial acceptance of the plaintiff’s representations. Therefore, the acceptance element of judicial estoppel was not met, and the plaintiff is not barred from pursuing his personal injury claim. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, reversed the Circuit Court’s summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Strong v. Acara Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Members of the rap group 2 Live Crew, including Mark Ross, created five albums between 1986 and 1989. Through a written agreement, the group assigned the sound recording copyrights to Luke Records, a company owned by one of the group’s members. In 1995, following Luke Records’ bankruptcy, these copyrights were sold to Lil’ Joe Records. In 2000, Mark Ross filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy; his termination interests in these copyrights were never listed or addressed in his bankruptcy proceedings. Years later, within the statutory window, Ross, another group member, and heirs of a third served a notice attempting to terminate the copyright grants to Luke Records, as permitted by the Copyright Act.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially concluded that Ross’s termination interests did not enter his bankruptcy estate, interpreting the Copyright Act and Bankruptcy Code to exclude them. The court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the effectiveness of the termination notice, and the case proceeded to trial. After the jury’s factual findings, the district court concluded the termination notice was valid. Lil’ Joe Records appealed the district court’s final judgment, the denial of its motion for summary judgment, and the denial of its motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Ross’s termination interests were property of his bankruptcy estate under the Bankruptcy Code, notwithstanding the Copyright Act’s inalienability restriction. Because these interests were never scheduled or administered by the bankruptcy court, they remained with the bankruptcy estate when Ross attempted to exercise them. As a result, Ross could not validly sign the termination notice, and the group did not have the required majority to terminate the copyright grants. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lil' Joe Records, Inc. v. Won" on Justia Law

Donald Smith owned and operated a company called No Rust Rebar, along with four other related entities. All these entities were controlled by Smith, shared business locations, and had overlapping operations and assets. No Rust Rebar filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which was later converted to Chapter 7 liquidation after a creditor's motion. During the bankruptcy proceedings, the court found that Smith routinely commingled the assets of No Rust Rebar with those of the other entities, failed to observe corporate formalities, and treated the businesses as a single operation subject to his personal discretion.Following these findings, the bankruptcy court appointed a trustee, who moved to substantively consolidate the assets and liabilities of the four non-debtor entities with No Rust Rebar’s bankruptcy estate. All entities received notice of this motion and objected, arguing that substantive consolidation required a separate adversary proceeding and an additional evidentiary hearing. However, they did not challenge the merits of consolidation or the findings that led to it, focusing solely on procedural issues. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida affirmed the bankruptcy court’s consolidation order after the non-debtor entities appealed, again raising only procedural arguments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the bankruptcy court’s decision de novo for legal conclusions and for clear error as to factual findings. The Eleventh Circuit held that the bankruptcy court had the authority to order substantive consolidation based on its findings that the entities were alter egos with a substantial identity. The court also concluded that any procedural errors related to the style or process of the motion were harmless, as all parties had notice and an opportunity to be heard. The substantive consolidation order was affirmed. View "Smith v. Slott" on Justia Law

Leonard and Pauline Cortellino executed a promissory note and mortgage in 2006 for the purchase of property in Maine. The mortgage, originally granted to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as nominee for Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc. (MLN), was later assigned multiple times, ultimately to Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee for Brougham Fund I Trust in 2016. However, MLN filed for bankruptcy in 2007 and ceased operations after the bankruptcy concluded in 2012. Due to deficiencies in prior assignments following the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf, parties sought to cure the assignment defects. In 2021, a receiver for MLN, appointed by the Delaware Court of Chancery, assigned the Cortellino mortgage to Wilmington Savings, which was recorded in 2022.After the Cortellinos defaulted on their mortgage payments in 2014, Wilmington Savings sent them a notice of default and right to cure in August 2022. Wilmington Savings filed a foreclosure action in the Maine Superior Court (Androscoggin County) in October 2022. Following a trial in October 2024 and post-trial submissions, the Superior Court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale in April 2025. The court found Wilmington Savings owned the mortgage and denied the Cortellinos’ motion for additional findings. The Cortellinos appealed.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the Superior Court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The Court held that Wilmington Savings was the rightful owner of the mortgage due to the valid receiver’s assignment, but found that the right-to-cure notice was legally defective. The notice overstated the amount required to cure the default and contained numerical inconsistencies, failing to strictly comply with Maine’s statutory requirements. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded for entry of dismissal. View "Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Cortellino" on Justia Law