Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Stone owned STM, which owed Fifth Third about $1 million, secured by liens on business assets and on Stone’s house. Stone’s attorney, Atherton, introduced Stone to Waldman, a potential investor. Stone did not know that Atherton was indebted to Waldman and had given Waldman STM’s proprietary business data. Atherton filed STM’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition to preserve assets so that Waldman could acquire them. Atherton allowed the automatic stay to expire. Fifth Third foreclosed, obtaining judgments and a lien on Stone’s house. Waldman paid Fifth Third $900,000 for the bank’s rights. Waldman and Atherton offered to pay off Stone’s debts and employ him in exchange for STM’s assets and told Stone to sign documents without reading them, to meet a filing deadline. The documents actually transferred all STM assets exchange for a job. Ultimately, Waldman owned all STM assets and Stone’s indebtedness, with no obligation to forgive it. Waldman filed garnishment actions; Stone filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, alleging that Waldman had fraudulently acquired debts and assets. Atherton was disbarred. The bankruptcy court found that Waldman and Atherton had perpetrated “egregious frauds,” invalidated Stone’s obligations, and awarded Stone $1,191,374 in compensatory and $2,000,000 in punitive damages. The district court affirmed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the discharge, but vacated the award of damages as unauthorized. View "Waldman v. Stone" on Justia Law

In 2008, Auday, age 47, started work at a Wet Seal store. In 2009, Wet Seal fired her. She claimed that the termination was unlawful and discriminatory. Days later, Auday filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing $510,725 in liabilities and $204,370 in assets, without mention of the age-discrimination claim, required by 11 U.S.C. 521(a)(1)(B)(i). Three months later, her lawyer (Pinchak) asked the trustee how to be hired to pursue the claim. Neither the trustee nor Pinchak informed the bankruptcy court, which discharged Auday in January 2010. In February, the trustee applied for authority to hire, Pinchak to pursue the claim against Wet Seal. The court granted the application, but the trustee did not hire Pinchak nor was the schedule amended. Auday later sued Wet Seal, seeking $500,000 in damages. The district court granted Wet Seal judgment, holding that failure to list a potential claim on her bankruptcy petition barred her from bringing the claim. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded. When Auday filed for bankruptcy, her estate became the owner of all of her property, including tort claims that accrued before filing, 11 U.S.C. 541(a)(1) The trustee may bring the claim or abandon it, returning it to Auday, which would require notice to creditors View "Auday v. Wet Seal Retail, Inc." on Justia Law

Debtor paid off a line of credit and a $28,000 loan from her parents and transferred her interest in the marital residence to her husband, Bruno. In a separation agreement, Debtor waived any claim to equity in the residence, about $27,500. Bruno agreed to pay the mortgage and retained four vehicles (marital property) plus three other vehicles and tracts totaling 60 acres, non-marital property. Debtor retained a 1999 Pontiac. Both waived claims to support and retirement accounts. Debtor later filed her chapter 7 no-asset petition, listing an $11,000.00 lien on the Pontiac and $60,763.48 credit card debt (both incurred during marriage). The Trustee filed an adversary complaint to recover the value of alleged fraudulent transfers, 11 U.S.C. 548(a)(1)(B), 544, 550. Bruno argued that in a contested divorce, he would have likely received support, insurance and part of Debtor’s pension. The bankruptcy court concluded that Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value and entered a judgment of $47,635.27. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value, but remanded to amend the judgment to $4,532.98. It was unnecessary to consider the likely outcome of a contested divorce; the issue was comparison of the value Debtor received with the value Debtor transferred. View "In re: Neal" on Justia Law

When AFC filed for bankruptcy in 2009, the FDIC was appointed receiver for AFC’s subsidiary, AmTrust and sought payment from AFC under 11 U.S.C. 365(o), which requires that a party seeking Chapter-11 bankruptcy fulfill “any commitment . . . to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution.” The FDIC argued that AFC made such a commitment by agreeing to entry of a cease-and-desist order requiring AFC’s board to “ensure that [the Bank] complies” with the Bank’s own obligation to “have and maintain” capital ratios of 7 percent (Tier 1) and 12 percent (total). The district court found that the order was not a capital-maintenance commitment under section 365(o). The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The cease-and-desist order is ambiguous and could reasonably be read as establishing either an oversight role or a capital-maintenance commitment and the bulk of the extrinsic evidence favored the “oversight” reading. View "Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Amtrust Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs delivered artifacts from a famous shipwreck to Debtor for display and, according to Debtor, sale in Debtor’s jewelry store. The store went out of business. When Debtor returned the artifacts, an emerald pendant and musket balls were missing. Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty, common law conversion, and statutory conversion or negligence. A Michigan state court found that Debtor’s failure to respond to any written discovery requests, file a response to the Motion for Summary Disposition, and appear at the hearing were sufficient basis for entry of summary disposition and awarded $42,706.10. The judgment did not specify the claim upon which it was based. Debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Plaintiffs filed an adversary complaint seeking to have the debt declared nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4), stating that Debtor’s actions constituted “fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.” The bankruptcy court granted Plaintiffs summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The bankruptcy court erred when it held that the issue of fraud was “necessarily determined” by the state court; the state court judgment cannot have issue preclusive effect as to this element for nondischargeability under the embezzlement portion of section 523(a)(4). View "In re: Dantone" on Justia Law

GTI went bankrupt after it purchased OAI, a subsidiary of Onkyo for $13 million in cash and $12 million in three-year promissory notes. Onkyo filed a proof of claim for $12 million. GTI responded by suing Onkyo under the theory that the OAI purchase was a fraudulent, voidable transaction. The bankruptcy court agreed, finding that OAI was worth $6.9 million at the time of the transaction, not $25 million. The court voided GTI’s obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase price and ordered Onkyo to repay GTI $6.1 million. The district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed. The bankruptcy court’s determination that the indirect benefits were insubstantial was valid without the necessity of providing calculations; its adoption of GTI’s expert’s value based on the comparable transactions method was not clearly erroneous. Once the bankruptcy court determined that the sale of OAI had been a fraudulent transfer and Onkyo was a good-faith transferee, awarding GTI relief was a simple matter of subtraction. View "Onkyo Europe Elec., GMBH v. Global Technovations Inc." on Justia Law

In 1998, Harchars filed a Chapter 13 petition. The government was a creditor because of a tax arrearage. A reorganization plan was confirmed, requiring that they pay in full priority tax claims and pay five cents on the dollar, over 43 months, unsecured, nonpriority claims by the government and similarly-situated creditors. In 2000, Harchars pursued an adversary proceeding, alleging injury caused by the government’s practice of “freezing” computer-automated refunding of tax overpayments to Chapter 13 debtors and refusal to issue a refund for their 1999 return until after the bankruptcy court resolved its motion to modify the plan to include the refund in plan funding. Harchars opposed the motion, explaining that they had separated, husband was no longer employed, and the refund was needed for living expenses. After Harchars filed amended schedules, the IRS withdrew its motion and issued the refund with interest. The bankruptcy court concluded that the IRS had not violated the automatic stay by manually processing or withholding the tax refund. The district court affirmed and held that a due-process claim was barred by sovereign immunity and that Harchars did not identify any provision of the plan that had been violated. The Sixth Circuit affirmed and dismissed the claims. View "Harchar v. United States" on Justia Law

An involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition was filed against Quality Stores, which eventually closed operations and terminated all employees. Under the Pre-Petition Plan, severance pay was based on job grade. Payments were made on the normal payroll schedule, not tied to receipt of unemployment compensation, and not attributable to particular services. The Post-Petition Plan was designed to encourage employees to defer their job searches; the lump-sum payments were not tied to receipt of unemployment compensation, nor attributable to provision of particular services. Quality reported the payments as wages and withheld income tax, paid the employer’s share of FICA tax, and withheld each employee’s share of FICA. Of $1,000,125 at issue, $382,362 is attributed to the Pre-Petition Plan, $214,000 for the employer share and $168,362 for the employee share; $617,763 is attributed to the Post- Petition Plan, $357,127 for the employer share and $260,636 for the employee share. Quality argued that the payments were not wages but supplemental unemployment compensation benefits, not taxable under FICA, and sought a refund of the employer share and the shares of consenting employees. When the IRS did not act, Quality filed an adversary action in the bankruptcy court, which ordered a full refund. The district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed.View "United States v. Quality Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Barbara, an analyst at the Cleveland Clinic, and Anthony, a stay-at-home father for two-year-old triplets and ten-year-old, filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 701. On Schedule B listing assets, they included a joint interest in “Anticipated 2009 Income Tax Refund,” value “unknown.” On their joint returns for 2009, they listed: adjusted gross income: $59,402; total tax liability: $2,934; total credits: $2,934; payroll taxes withheld: $6,777; and total federal tax refund: $8,542. On line 51, “Tax and Credits,” they listed $2,903 for the Child Tax Credit (CTC). On line 65, “Payments,” they listed $1,097 for additional CTC. They amended Schedule B, changing the unknown value of their tax refund. They specified $4,000 as the portion of their refund due to the CTC and $4,542 for the portion not due to the CTC. They amended Schedule C of the bankruptcy petition, to list the $4,000 portion as exempt pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2329.66(A)(9)(g). The Trustee objected, arguing that $2,903 of the CTC, the so-called “non-refundable portion,” was not exempt. The bankruptcy court sustained the Trustee’s objection, reducing the exemption to $1,907. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed View "Zingale v. Rabin" on Justia Law

In 2009, the debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Michigan law permits debtors in bankruptcy to choose exemptions from: 11 U.S.C. 522(d); a set of general exemptions available to all Michigan residents irrespective of bankruptcy status, Mich. Comp. Laws 600.6023; or a list of exemptions available solely to debtors in bankruptcy, Mich. Comp. Laws 600.5451. The debtor chose a homestead exemption under the last option, which permits only bankruptcy debtors to exempt up to $30,000 of the value of the home, or up to $45,000 if the debtor is over the age of 65 or disabled. The figures are adjusted for inflation triennially, such that the debtor, who is disabled, claimed a total exemption of $44,695 in the value of his home; the federal exemption would be $21,625 and the Michigan general homestead exemption was $3,500. The trustee filed an objection. The Bankruptcy Court upheld the exemption. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The phrase “uniform Laws” in the Bankruptcy Clause permits states to act in the arena of bankruptcy exemptions, without violation of the Supremacy Clause, even if they do so by making certain exemptions available only to debtors in bankruptcy .View "State of MI v. Schafer" on Justia Law