Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Horsfall worked as a real estate agent for First Weber, 2001-2002, and was the listing agent on First Weber’s contract with Call, who was trying to sell property. The contract gave First Weber exclusive rights collect commissions for sale of the property during the listing period and an exclusive right to collect commissions from sales to defined “protected buyers” for one year after the listing expired. The Acostas made an offer on the property and became “protected buyers.” Call’s contract with First Weber ended in August and at the same time, Horsfall left First Weber to establish his own brokerage, Picket Fence. In October, the Acostas contacted Horsfall. Without involving First Weber, Horsfall resuscitated the transaction with Call. The Acostas and Call executed a sales contract for the Call property. Picket Fence received a $6,000 commission, inconsistent with Horsfall’s status as First Weber’s agent under the earlier contract and in violation of Wisconsin real estate practice rules. Six years later, First Weber sued Horsfall in state court, asserting r breach of contract, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. The state court entered a judgment against Horsfall for $10,978.91. Horsfall filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing First Weber as a creditor. First Weber responded that its judgment was non‐dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), as involving “willful and malicious injury.” The bankruptcy court, district court, and Seventh Circuit found the debt dischargeable. View "First Weber Grp., Inc. v. Horsfall" on Justia Law

The Debtor leased a building and, during liquidation in bankruptcy, assumed the lease, 11 U.S.C. 365, and sold the leasehold interest (and other assets) to Tenant. The bankruptcy judge approved the transaction in 2007, after Landlord did not object to the Debtor’s assertion that Landlord did not have any outstanding claim against the Debtor. The approval barred any claims based on pre‐sale events. The lease requires Tenant to maintain the roof. In 2010 the Landlord sued Tenant in state court, based on that obligation. By motion in the closed bankruptcy proceeding, Tenant asked the bankruptcy court to interpret the 2007 order as blocking the claim. The bankruptcy judge concluded that the order did not affect continuing obligations such as the duty to keep leased premises in good repair; Landlord requested a prospective remedy, not damages. The district court disagreed, ruling that Landlord can enforce the good‐repair clause only to the extent that defects in the roof first occurred after the lease’s assumption in bankruptcy. The Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the district court did not enter an injunction. The court expressed hope that the bankruptcy judge or the district judge will attend to several issues inherent in both opinions. View "Harrison Kishwaukee, LLC v. Rockford Acquisition, LLC" on Justia Law

Attorney Stilp represented Miller in claims concerning the construction of Miller’s house by contractor Herman. The district court dismissed. Stilp recommended that Miller terminate the action based on state law. Miller told Stilp that needed time to consider whether to refile., Herman filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Herman’s bankruptcy attorney, Jones, prepared schedules listing the addresses of all creditors. Miller was listed as a creditor on the bankruptcy schedules and creditor matrix, but his address was listed as “c/o Thomas Stilp, Attorney” at Stilp’s office address. Notice of the bankruptcy was delivered to Stilp’s office but was routed to another attorney. Neither Stilp nor Miller was informed of the notice. Miller subsequently informed Stilp that he wanted to refile his complaint against Herman. Stilp then discovered that Herman had filed for bankruptcy protection. Miller did not take immediate action and, about a month later, the bankruptcy court entered a discharge order. About 13 months after he learned of Herman’s bankruptcy petition, Miller moved to reopen the case (11 U.S.C. 727(a)(4)(A)). The bankruptcy court denied the motion. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that Miller had been properly served when notice was delivered to Stilp’s firm.View "Miller v. Herman" on Justia Law

Brookfield owns a shopping center that is subject to a first mortgage of $8,900,000, held by a trust, and a second mortgage for $2,539,375 that has been transferred to ValStone, which also serves as attorney in fact for the trust. Outside of bankruptcy, state law would allow ValStone to foreclose upon default on the second mortgage; ValStone could bid on the property at auction or receive proceeds from its sale. The second mortgage is a nonrecourse loan; if the proceeds of sale were not enough to repay the first mortgage or repay the second mortgage in full, ValStone could not pursue a deficiency claim for the outstanding debt. ValStone did not initiate foreclosure. Brookfield filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Under its reorganization plan, Brookfield elected to retain ownership of the property, requiring the bankruptcy court to establish a judicial value by means of independent appraisals. The value is expected to be less than the amount of the first mortgage, which will leave the second mortgage unsecured by any equity. ValStone argued that 11 U.S.C. 1111(b)(1)(A) treats the claim as if it had recourse, so that its unsecured deficiency claim should be allowed. Brookfield argued that the claim should be disallowed because neither state law nor 11 U.S.C. 1111(b) give ValStone a deficiency claim against Brookfield. The bankruptcy court and the district court held that the claim was valid. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "B.R. Brookfield Commons No. 1 v. Valstone Asset Mgmt,, LLC" on Justia Law

After the mutual funds, known as the Lancelot or Colossus group, folded in 2008, the trustee in bankruptcy filed independent suits or adversary actions seeking to recover from solvent third parties, including the Funds’ auditor, law firm, and some of the Funds’ investors, which the Trustee believes received preferential transfers or fraudulent conveyances. The Funds had invested in notes issued by Thousand Lakes, which was actually a Ponzi scheme, paying old investors with newly raised money. In these proceedings the trustee contends that investors who redeemed shares before the bankruptcy received preferential transfers, 11 U.S.C. 547, or fraudulent conveyances, 11 U.S.C. 548(a)(1)(B) and raised a claim under the Illinois fraudulent-conveyance statute, using the avoiding power of 11 U.S.C. 544. The bankruptcy court dismissed the claims against the law firm that prepared circulars for the Firms. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. No Illinois court has held that failure to report a corporate manager’s acts to the board of directors exposes a law firm to malpractice liability. The complaint does not plausibly allege that alerting the directors would have made a difference. View "Peterson v. Winston & Strawn, LLP" on Justia Law

After the mutual funds, known as the Lancelot or Colossus group, folded in 2008, the trustee in bankruptcy filed independent suits or adversary actions seeking to recover from solvent third parties, including the Funds’ auditor, law firm, and some of the Funds’ investors, which the Trustee believes received preferential transfers or fraudulent conveyances. The Funds had invested in notes issued by Thousand Lakes, which was actually a Ponzi scheme, paying old investors with newly raised money. In these proceedings the trustee contends that investors who redeemed shares before the bankruptcy received preferential transfers, 11 U.S.C. 547, or fraudulent conveyances, 11 U.S.C. 548(a)(1)(B) and raised a claim under the Illinois fraudulent-conveyance statute, using the avoiding power of 11 U.S.C. 544. The bankruptcy court rejected the claims, citing the statutory exception: “the trustee may not avoid a settlement payment or transfer made to a financial participant in connection with a securities contract, except under section 548(a)(1)(A) of this title.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. A transfer from the Funds to each redeeming investor occurred “in connection with” a securities contract. View "Peterson v. Somers Dublin, Ltd." on Justia Law

Before its 2007 bankruptcy, Sentinel was an investment manager. Its customers were not typical investors; most were futures commission merchants (FCMs), which operate in the commodity industry like to the securities industry’s broker‐dealers. Through Sentinel, FCMs’ client money could, in compliance with industry regulations, earn a decent return while maintaining the liquidity FCMs need. To accept capital from FCM customers, Sentinel had to register as an FCM, but it did not solicit or accept orders for futures contracts; it received a no‐action letter from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) exempting it from certain requirements applicable to FCMs. Sentinel represented that it would maintain customer funds in segregated accounts as required under the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1. In reality, Sentinel pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in customer assets to secure an overnight loan at the Bank of New York. Sentinel’s bankruptcy trustee claimed fraudulent transfer, equitable subordination, and illegal contract, in an effort to dislodge the Bank’s secured position. The district court rejected all of the claims. The Seventh Circuit reversed, rejecting a finding that Sentinel’s failure to keep client funds properly segregated was insufficient to show actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud. View "In re Sentinel Mgmt. Grp., Inc." on Justia Law

After entry of a judgment of $650,000 in the Northern District of Texas as a sanction for failure to engage in discovery, Sharif filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Northern District of Illinois. WIN, a judgment creditor, filed an adversary complaint, seeking to prevent discharge of Sharif’s debts under 11 U.S.C. 727, and a declaratory judgment that a trust of which Sharif was trustee was actually Sharif’s alter ego. Sharif failed to respond to WIN’s and the bankruptcy trustee’s discovery requests. Sharif eventually tendered some discovery, far short of full compliance. The bankruptcy judge entered default judgment in WIN’s favor and awarded attorney’s fees. After entry of judgment but before briefing on an appeal, the Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court lacked constitutional authority to enter final judgment on a state‐law counterclaim against a creditor, even though Congress had granted it statutory authority to do so. When Sharif finally raised the issue, the district judge held that Sharif’s failure to raise it earlier constituted waiver. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the constitutional objection is not waivable because it implicates separation‐of‐powers principles. The bankruptcy judge lacked constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on the alter‐ego claim but had constitutional authority to enter final judgment on objections to discharge of Sharif’s debts. View "Sharif v. Wellness Int'l Network" on Justia Law

Bank of America lost approximately $34 million when the Knight companies went bankrupt. BOA sued, claiming that Knight’s directors and managers looted the firm and that its accountants failed to detect the embezzlement. The district court dismissed. The accountants invoked the protection of Illinois law, 225 ILCS 450/30.1, which provides that an accountant is liable only to its clients unless the accountant itself committed fraud (not alleged in this case) or “was aware that a primary intent of the client was for the professional services to benefit or influence the particular person bringing the action” The court found that BOA did not plausibly allege that the accountants knew that Knight’s “primary intent” was to benefit the Bank in alleging that the accountants knew that Knight would furnish copies of the financial statements to lenders. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting BOA’s choice not to pursue its claims in the bankruptcy process. View "Bank of America, N.A. v. Knight" on Justia Law

Gary and Deborah divorced in 2003 and agreed to a marital settlement. Gary purchased an annuity, to pay him $200 per month until his death; the settlement required him to pay her “$200 per month…in lieu of her interest in [the annuity].” Two years later, Gary filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and asked the court to discharge financial obligations to his ex-wife under the settlement. Gary attempted to blackmail Deborah into cooperation, using nude photos of her sister as a child. He is now in prison for bankruptcy fraud and possession of child pornography. 18 U.S.C. 152(6), 2252A(a)(5)(B). Deborah and the bankruptcy trustee agreed that she had an unsecured claim for $158,455.63, including $12,400 representing 62 monthly payments that the trustee had received under the annuity. Gary owned the annuity, so these payments were part of the bankruptcy estate and their inclusion in her claim was a mistake. The trustee successfully moved the bankruptcy judge to permit transfer to Deborah of $1000 in annuity payments collected since settling her claim, and to direct the company to make future payments to her directly. The Seventh Circuit reversed, directing the court either to order Deborah to return the $1000 or order the trustee to deduct it from her claim and to instruct the company to resume making payments to the trustee. View "Peel v. Peel" on Justia Law