Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

In August 2019, a company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, with its only assets being three properties occupied by its sole member and two affiliates. Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. obtained judgments against these affiliates and initiated an adversary proceeding against the debtor, seeking to hold it liable for the affiliates’ obligations. During this process, the bankruptcy trustee filed a separate adversary proceeding to recover unpaid rent from one affiliate. A settlement was reached in which Arrowhead received assignment of claims against the affiliates in exchange for releasing its own claims. The bankruptcy court approved this settlement, retaining jurisdiction over the assigned claims. Arrowhead then intervened and obtained a final judgment against the affiliates, including Royal Street Bistro, LLC (RSB).After the bankruptcy court entered judgment, RSB and another affiliate filed a notice of appeal but failed to attach a copy of the judgment as required by the bankruptcy rules. The bankruptcy court clerk issued a deficiency notice, and the corrected notice was filed ten days after the deadline. Arrowhead moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the failure to timely attach the judgment deprived the district court of jurisdiction. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed the appeal, holding that the defect was jurisdictional and, alternatively, that dismissal was warranted as a discretionary sanction for noncompliance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that failure to attach the judgment to the notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect under the bankruptcy rules, and that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the appeal without considering lesser sanctions or the absence of prejudice. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Royal Street Bistro v. Arrowhead Capital" on Justia Law

After Dallas Commodity Company obtained a $1.5 million state court judgment against Joseph F. Langston, Jr. and the Langston Family Limited Partnership, Langston filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He claimed exemptions for two Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) worth over $500,000. The bankruptcy trustee repeatedly continued the creditors’ meeting (the “341 meeting”) to allow Langston to provide additional documents. The final 341 meeting occurred on May 26, 2021, after which the trustee failed to file a statement specifying the adjourned date and time as required by Bankruptcy Rule 2003(e). Despite this, the parties continued to communicate and negotiate, with Langston amending his bankruptcy schedules and entering into an agreed order with the trustees to abate related litigation until exemption objections were resolved.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas overruled Langston’s objection that Dallas Commodity’s challenge to his claimed exemptions was untimely, even though the objection was filed more than 30 days after the last 341 meeting. The bankruptcy court found that Langston had agreed to the continuance and had not objected to the process until after the objection was filed. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed, applying the Fifth Circuit’s prior case law and finding the objection timely under a case-by-case approach.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that, although the trustee failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2003(e), Langston had waived his right to object to the timeliness of Dallas Commodity’s exemption challenge by agreeing to the continuance and benefiting from the additional time. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the bankruptcy court properly overruled Langston’s timeliness objection on the basis of waiver. View "Langston v. Dallas Commodity Co." on Justia Law

Sanchez Energy Corporation, a gas producer, underwent Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 due to significant debt, with its reorganization plan confirmed in April 2020. The company, later renamed Mesquite Energy, Inc., owned valuable fossil fuel reserves in the Comanche Field, Texas, and had several high-cost contracts for gathering, processing, transporting, and marketing natural gas and natural gas liquids. Carnero G&P, L.L.C., a midstream services provider, had a contract with Sanchez to serve as a backup provider. After Sanchez’s reorganization, Mesquite entered into new agreements with other parties to lower its midstream costs, which Carnero claimed breached its surviving contract.Following the bankruptcy, Carnero filed a state court lawsuit against Mesquite and other parties, asserting state law claims based on the new agreements. The suit was removed to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, which denied Carnero’s request to remand and ultimately dismissed the case on the pleadings, finding it had “related-to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334. The bankruptcy court reasoned that the dispute pertained to the implementation of the reorganization plan and that Carnero was barred from challenging the new agreements due to its failure to object during the bankruptcy proceedings. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the jurisdictional question de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court lacked post-confirmation “related-to” jurisdiction over Carnero’s state law contract claims, as the dispute did not pertain to the implementation or execution of the reorganization plan. The court found that the new agreements were not executory contracts under the plan and that Carnero was not barred from pursuing its claims. The Fifth Circuit reversed the lower courts’ judgments and remanded the case with instructions to remand to state court. View "Carnero G&P v. SN EF Maverick" on Justia Law

Carol Rose, a prominent figure in the American Quarter Horse industry, entered into a series of agreements with Lori and Philip Aaron in 2013. The Aarons agreed to purchase a group of Rose’s horses at an auction, lease her Gainesville Ranch with an option to buy, and employ her as a consultant. The relationship quickly soured after the auction, with both sides accusing each other of breaches. Rose locked the Aarons out of the ranch and asserted a stable keeper’s lien for charges exceeding those related to the care of the Aarons’ horses. The Aarons paid the demanded sum and removed their horses. Litigation ensued, including claims by Jay McLaughlin, Rose’s former trainer, for damages related to the value of two fillies.The bankruptcy filings by Rose and her company led to the removal of the ongoing state-court litigation to the United States Bankruptcy Court. After trial, the bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the Aarons on their breach of contract and Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA) claims, awarding damages and attorneys’ fees, and in favor of McLaughlin on his claim. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas reversed the bankruptcy court’s rulings on the Aarons’ claims and McLaughlin’s claim, vacating the damages and fee awards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s reversal of the damages award for the Aarons’ breach of contract claim, holding that the Aarons failed to prove damages under any recognized Texas law measure. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment on the TTLA claim, holding that Rose’s threat to retain the Aarons’ horses for more than the lawful amount could constitute coercion under the TTLA, and remanded for further fact finding on intent and causation. The court also reversed and remanded the judgment regarding McLaughlin’s claim, finding his damages testimony legally insufficient. The court left the issue of attorneys’ fees for further proceedings. View "Rose v. Equis Equine" on Justia Law

Casey Cotton rear-ended Caleb Crabtree, causing significant injuries. Cotton, insured by Allstate, faced potential liability exceeding his policy limit. Allstate allegedly refused to settle with Crabtree and failed to inform Cotton of the settlement negotiations or his potential liability, giving Cotton a potential bad-faith claim against Allstate. The Crabtrees sued Cotton, who declared bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court allowed the personal-injury action to proceed, resulting in a $4 million judgment for the Crabtrees, making them judgment creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding. Cotton’s bad-faith claim was classified as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court allowed the Crabtrees to purchase Cotton’s bad-faith claim for $10,000, which they financed through Court Properties, Inc.The Crabtrees sued Allstate, asserting Cotton’s bad-faith claim. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the assignments of Cotton’s claim to Court Properties and then to the Crabtrees were champertous and void under Mississippi law. Consequently, the court found that the Crabtrees lacked Article III standing as they had not suffered any injury from Allstate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court certified a question to the Supreme Court of Mississippi regarding the validity of the assignments under Mississippi’s champerty statute. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the statute prohibits a disinterested third party engaged by a bankruptcy creditor from purchasing a cause of action from a debtor’s estate. Based on this ruling, the Fifth Circuit held that the assignment of Cotton’s claim to Court Properties was void, and thus, the Crabtrees did not possess Cotton’s bad-faith claim. Therefore, the Crabtrees lacked standing to sue Allstate, and the district court’s dismissal was affirmed. View "Crabtree v. Allstate Property" on Justia Law

Sanchez Energy Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2019 due to a downturn in the oil and gas industry caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The bankruptcy court approved a reorganization plan in April 2020, which aimed to compensate creditors with equity in a new entity. Disputes arose between secured and unsecured creditors over the allocation of this equity. The bankruptcy court sided with the unsecured creditors, awarding them a dominant stake in the new entity after hypothetically valuing various avoidance actions preserved by the reconstituted debtor.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially reviewed the case. The bankruptcy court held that the secured creditors' pre-petition liens on valuable oil and gas interests were avoidable preferential transfers. The court then proceeded to value the avoidance actions and allocated the equity shares in the new entity, Mesquite Energy, Inc., based on this valuation. The secured creditors appealed the decision, arguing that the bankruptcy court's valuation and allocation contravened the Bankruptcy Code.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the bankruptcy court's equity allocation violated the Bankruptcy Code, specifically 11 U.S.C. §§ 550(a) and (d), because it incorrectly approved more than a "single satisfaction" as a remedy for the avoided secured creditors' liens. The Fifth Circuit vacated the bankruptcy court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court emphasized that the Plan did not permit a hypothetical valuation process that disregarded the proper application of Sections 550(a) and (d) and that the secured creditors were entitled to a single satisfaction for their liens. View "Sr Secured Noteholders v. DE Trust Co" on Justia Law

Ross Shaun Adair hired Stutsman Construction to repair his flood-damaged home. Adair claimed the repairs were substandard and refused to pay the final installment. Stutsman obtained a default judgment against Adair in Louisiana state court. Adair then filed for bankruptcy, and Stutsman sought to have its judgment declared nondischargeable. Adair argued that Stutsman’s regulatory violations barred this relief under the unclean hands doctrine. The bankruptcy court ruled that the Louisiana judgment precluded Adair’s unclean hands defense.The bankruptcy court held that Adair willfully and maliciously injured Stutsman by not paying the final installment and denied dischargeability of the judgment. The district court affirmed both the preclusion of Adair’s unclean hands defense and the merits of Stutsman’s complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in finding Adair’s unclean hands defense precluded, as the default judgment did not indicate the issue was actually litigated. Additionally, the court noted that Adair’s unclean hands defense was not available in the Louisiana litigation, which only allowed a narrower legal defense under the Louisiana Civil Code. The appellate court vacated the bankruptcy court’s judgment and remanded the case for consideration of Adair’s unclean hands defense. View "Adair v. Stutsman Construction" on Justia Law

A bankruptcy trustee objected to the treatment of student-loan debt under two proposed Chapter 13 plans filed by Victoria Florita Durand-Day and Lavonda Latrece Evans. Durand-Day listed $113,560.65 in nonpriority unsecured claims, including two student loans totaling $54,195.00, but her plan only accounted for $71,580.65 in scheduled unsecured claims. Evans listed $106,402.00 in nonpriority unsecured claims, including twelve student loans totaling $73,927.00, but her plan only accounted for $32,475.00 in scheduled unsecured claims. Both debtors proposed to pay their student loans directly to the lenders rather than through the Chapter 13 trustee.The bankruptcy court overruled the trustee's objections and confirmed the plans, concluding that the plans satisfied 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(A) because the student-loan obligations would be paid in full according to their contractual terms under § 1322(b)(5). The trustee appealed, and the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, holding that the payments toward the student-loan obligations were still "under the [Plans]" per § 1325(b)(1)(A) even if they continued beyond the end of the plans.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the plans did not satisfy 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1). The court held that "under the plan" means that all allowed, unsecured claims, including student-loan obligations, must be paid in full within the life of the Chapter 13 plan. The court vacated the confirmation of the plans and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the debtors to file new plans consistent with this decision. View "Bassel v. Durand-Day" on Justia Law

Highland Capital Management, L.P., a Dallas-based investment firm, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 due to numerous unpaid judgments and liabilities. During the bankruptcy proceedings, James Dondero, a co-founder, stepped down as a director and officer but continued as an unpaid portfolio manager. The unsecured creditors' committee and independent directors opposed Dondero's reorganization plans, leading to his resignation in October 2020. The bankruptcy court held Dondero in civil contempt and sanctioned him for obstructing the proceedings. The proposed reorganization plan included provisions to shield Highland Capital and associated entities from liability, including an Exculpation Provision and an Injunction Provision with a Gatekeeper Clause.The bankruptcy court confirmed the plan, but on direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the plan in part, striking certain non-debtors from the Exculpation Provision. The investment fund parties requested clarification on whether the same entities should be removed from the Gatekeeper Clause. The bankruptcy court conformed the plan by narrowing the definition of "Exculpated Parties" but did not change the definition of "Protected Parties" in the Gatekeeper Clause, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the bankruptcy court failed to implement its instructions properly. The court held that the definition of "Protected Parties" in the Gatekeeper Clause must be narrowed to include only the Debtor, the Independent Directors for conduct within their duties, the Committee, and the members of the Committee in their official capacities. The court reversed the bankruptcy court's decision in part and remanded the case for the plan to be revised accordingly. View "Highland Capital Fund Advisors v. Highland Capital Management" on Justia Law

Matthew Kerns, the sole member and manager of Glade Creek Livestock, LLC, personally guaranteed a loan from First State Bank of Ben Wheeler (FSBBW) using equipment and cattle as collateral. When Glade Creek faced financial difficulties, Kerns sold some of the cattle, leading FSBBW to demand full repayment. Kerns filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and during the automatic stay, FSBBW reported the sale of the collateral to a special ranger with the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA). This led to Kerns' indictment and arrest for hindering a secured creditor.The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of FSBBW, holding that FSBBW's actions fell within the safe harbor provision of the Annunzio-Wylie Money Laundering Act, which protects financial institutions from liability for reporting possible violations of law. Kerns appealed to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision. Kerns then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that FSBBW's report to the special ranger was protected under the safe harbor provision of the Annunzio-Wylie Act, as the special ranger qualified as law enforcement under Texas law. The court also found that Kerns had forfeited his argument for the recusal of the bankruptcy judge by not raising it earlier, despite knowing the basis for recusal since 2021. The court concluded that FSBBW's conduct was shielded from liability, and the summary judgment in favor of FSBBW was affirmed. View "Kerns v. First State Bank" on Justia Law