Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

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

MTG, Inc., a company specializing in tooling for the auto industry, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1995, which was later converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding in 1996. Charles Taunt was appointed as the Chapter 7 trustee and, during his tenure, entered into a fee agreement with Comerica Bank, MTG's largest secured creditor. Taunt failed to disclose this agreement to the bankruptcy court, despite rules requiring disclosure of such connections. Several orders were issued during this time that benefited Comerica, including allowance of its claim, relief from stay, and settlement of pre-petition lender liability claims. After Taunt's undisclosed conflict of interest was revealed, litigation ensued over whether the resulting orders should be set aside and whether Taunt, his law firms, and Comerica were liable for fraud, conversion, and unauthorized transfers.Following discovery of Taunt's conflict, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan vacated the orders benefitting Comerica and found Taunt and his law firm had committed fraud on the court. Taunt was disqualified as trustee, his firm was denied fees, and Guy Vining was appointed as successor trustee. Vining initiated an adversary proceeding with multiple claims, primarily post-petition claims alleging fraud on the court, avoidable transfers, and conversion. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment for defendants on most claims, awarding only limited attorney’s fees for exposing the fraud. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan affirmed these rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held Comerica was not directly or vicariously liable for fraud on the court, as it was not an officer of the court and did not control Taunt. The court also ruled that the challenged post-petition transfers were authorized by valid court orders and thus not avoidable under bankruptcy law. Finally, the court found Taunt’s actions as trustee were authorized, rejecting the conversion claim. The limited attorney’s fees award and denial of punitive damages were upheld as within the bankruptcy court’s discretion. View "Vining v. Plunkett Cooney, P.C." on Justia Law

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