Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Debtors, Schlotzsky's Inc. and certain affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and appellants were one of the creditors. On appeal, appellants challenged the denial of their motion to pursue post-confirmation causes of action on behalf of the reorganized debtor. The court concluded that the joint plan of liquidation (Plan) did not specifically reserve the state law claims that appellants wished to assert. Without this specific reservation, the Plan Administrator - and, by extension, appellants - lacked standing to pursue the proposed claims. Thus, the claims were not colorable, and the bankruptcy court did not err in denying appellants' motion to pursue causes of action on behalf of debtors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wooley, et al v. Faulkner, et al" on Justia Law

Debtor filed for leave to appeal the bankruptcy court's interlocutory judgment in the district court. While the motion was pending, the bankruptcy court, sua sponte, certified its judgment for direct appeal to this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(2)(A)(i) and (iii). The court agreed with the bankruptcy court's ruling on cross-motions for partial summary judgment in favor of FGB that the Multiple Indebtedness Mortgage that FGB recorded was valid and that the property underlying that mortgage, the Deluxe Motel, secured both the loan FGB made to debtor and the loan FGB made to a second entity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hari Aum, L.L.C. v. First Guaranty Bank" on Justia Law

IPS and MPES challenged the district court's final judgment, reversing and vacating the bankruptcy court's amended judgment, that their mechanics' liens on the property of debtor did not pertain to materials or labor supplied before the date on which Metrobank perfected its deed of trust lien, September 1, 2006. Hajoca and Crescent challenged the bankruptcy court's determination that their mechanics' liens also did not pertain to materials or labor supplied before September 1, 2006, which the district court upheld. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court clearly erred in determining that IPS and MPES had supplied materials or labor before September 1, 2006. The court also concluded that the bankruptcy court correctly determined that Hajoca and Crescent had not supplied materials or labor before September 1, 2006. Accordingly, the court affirmed the final judgment of the district court, which reversed and vacated the amended judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "First National Bank, et al v. Crescent Electrical Supply Co., et al" on Justia Law

Appellant, a former TWL employee, commenced a class action adversary proceeding within TWL's bankruptcy suit, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. 2101-2109. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order denying appellant's related motion for class certification and dismissed the adversary proceeding. Because the reasons for the bankruptcy court's order were unclear, the court vacated in toto the orders and remanded to the district court to remand to the bankruptcy court for reconsideration. The court expressed no view as to the outcome the bankruptcy court should reach on remand in reconsidering appellant's motion for reclassification and the Trustee's motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding. View "Teta v. TWL Corp., et al" on Justia Law

Wells Fargo appealed from a district court decision affirming confirmation of a Chapter 11 cramdown plan. Debtors had obtained a loan from Morgan Stanley to renovate hotel properties and Wells Fargo eventually acquired the loan from Morgan Stanley. As a preliminary matter, the court held that the appeal was not equitably moot. On the merits, the court held that the bankruptcy court's 5% cramdown rate calculation on the basis of a straightforward application of the prime-plus approach was not erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wells Fargo Bank National Assn v. TX Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, et al" on Justia Law

Fire Eagle appealed the district court's decision affirming a bankruptcy court's grants of summary judgment in two consolidated matters. The court held that the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction extended to the underlying adversary actions and declined to reverse the district court's holding to that effect. The bankruptcy court's entering an order in the two adversary proceedings without reference to the district court was within its statutory authority. There was no constitutional bar to the bankruptcy court's exercise of its jurisdiction over the two adversary actions. Venue was proper in the Western District of Texas. The transfer of venue of the Bischoff Adversary to the Western District of Texas was proper. Finally, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment. View "Fire Eagle, L.L.C. v. Bischoff, et al" on Justia Law

Western appealed a bankruptcy court order confirming a Chapter 11 cramdown plan and denying Western's motion for relief from the automatic stay. The court expressly rejected Matter of Windsor on the River Associates, Ltd. and joined the Ninth Circuit in holding that 11 U.S.C. 1129(a)(10) did not distinguish between discretionary and economically driven impairment. In light of the record in this case, the court could not conclude that the district court clearly erred in its section 1129(a)(3) analysis, particularly as the court has recognized that a single-asset debtor's desire to protect its equity could be a legitimate Chapter 11 objective. The court emphasized, however, that the court's decision did not circumscribe the factors bankruptcy courts could consider in evaluating a plan proponent's good faith. Because the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in confirming the Village's plan, Western's theory of cause necessarily also failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Western Real Estate Equities v. Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P." on Justia Law

Debtor's ex-wife loaned him two sums of money to support his separate business. At issue was whether the debt was dischargeable in bankruptcy. The court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court and concluded that the debt was nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(15) of the Bankruptcy Code, which left it to the state court to decide whether a property right was properly addressed in divorce proceedings, or as a separate contractual claim. View "Kinkade v. Kinkade" on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals arose from the district court's appointment of a receiver of Jeffrey Baron's personal property and entities he owned or controlled. Barron and Munish Krishan formed a joint venture involving the ownership and sale of internet domain names. Disputes arose between the venturers, resulting in at least seven lawsuits. The district court subsequently sought to stop Baron's practice of regularly firing one lawyer and hiring a new one. Baron appealed the receivership order and almost every order entered by the district court thereafter. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the appointment of the receiver was an abuse of discretion. Numerous motions and a writ of mandamus to overturn the bankruptcy court's striking of notices of appeal to the district court were also before the court. Most were denied as moot and the court addressed the remaining motions that were relevant. View "Netsphere Inc., et al v. Baron" on Justia Law

ASARCO filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the bankruptcy court. Lehman was retained as ASARCO's financial advisor and investment banker during the bankruptcy proceedings. Lehman subsequently commenced its own bankruptcy proceedings. Barclays then acquired Lehman's investment banking and financial advisory businesses. At issue on appeal was the fee dispute between ASARCO and Barclays. The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in awarding the $975,000 fee enhancement to Barclays. Although the court found no reversible error, the court remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the bankruptcy court for it to consider whether a Success Fee was appropriate in light of the court's conclusion that the fee enhancement award was made in error. View "ASARCO, L.L.C., et al v. Barclays Capital, Inc." on Justia Law