Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Yellow Corporation, a major trucking company, ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy in 2023. As a result, it withdrew from several multiemployer pension plans, triggering withdrawal liability—an amount owed to the pension plans to cover unfunded vested benefits for employees. The pension plans, which had received substantial federal funds under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) to stabilize their finances, filed claims against Yellow’s bankruptcy estate for withdrawal liability. The dispute centered on how much of the ARPA funds should be counted as plan assets when calculating Yellow’s liability, as well as whether certain contractual terms could require Yellow to pay a higher withdrawal liability than statutory minimums.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware reviewed the claims. It upheld two regulations issued by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC): the Phase-In Regulation, which requires ARPA funds to be counted as plan assets gradually over time, and the No-Receivables Regulation, which bars plans from counting ARPA funds as assets before they are actually received. The Bankruptcy Court found these regulations to be valid exercises of PBGC’s authority and not arbitrary or capricious. It also ruled that two pension plans could enforce a contractual provision requiring Yellow to pay withdrawal liability at a higher, agreed-upon rate, rather than the rate based solely on its actual contributions.On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order. The Third Circuit held that the PBGC’s regulations were valid under ARPA and ERISA, as Congress had expressly delegated authority to the PBGC to set reasonable conditions on the allocation of plan assets and withdrawal liability. The court also held that pension plans could enforce contractual terms requiring higher withdrawal liability, as the statutory scheme sets a floor, not a ceiling, for such liability. View "In re: Yellow Corporation" on Justia Law

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. and its affiliates, former processors and distributors of industrial chemicals including talc, faced thousands of asbestos-related tort claims after selling their operating assets in 2004. In 2023, following a $29 million jury verdict in South Carolina for a plaintiff diagnosed with mesothelioma, the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas appointed a receiver to manage Whittaker’s assets. The receiver was granted broad authority to administer Whittaker’s assets and protect its interests, but the order did not explicitly remove the board’s authority over corporate affairs.Whittaker’s board, without consulting the receiver, authorized a bankruptcy filing in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. The receiver moved to dismiss the bankruptcy, arguing that only he had authority to file. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, finding the board retained authority under New Jersey law, and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed. Meanwhile, the Official Committee of Talc Claimants intervened in an adversary proceeding, contesting whether certain successor liability claims against a nondebtor (Brenntag) were property of the bankruptcy estate. The Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment to the debtors, holding that these claims belonged to the estate, and certified the decision for direct appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed both lower courts. It held that an improperly filed bankruptcy petition is not a jurisdictional defect but may be grounds for dismissal. The court determined that under New Jersey law, the board retained authority to file for bankruptcy because the South Carolina receiver had not been recognized by a New Jersey court. The court also held that successor liability claims based on a “product line” theory are general claims belonging to the bankruptcy estate, not to individual creditors, following its precedent in In re Emoral. View "In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels Inc." on Justia Law

Eileen Adams and her husband lost their New Jersey home to foreclosure after a series of events involving the transfer and assignment of their mortgage. The mortgage, originally held by AmTrust Bank, was assigned to EverBank after AmTrust’s failure, and then to Nationstar Mortgage. Adams defaulted on the mortgage, leading EverBank to initiate foreclosure proceedings. Although Adams answered the foreclosure complaint, she did not oppose summary judgment, which was granted in favor of EverBank. Subsequent assignments and litigation ensued, but Adams and her husband ultimately lost their appeals in the New Jersey courts, including a denial of review by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.After exhausting state-court remedies, Adams and her husband filed multiple bankruptcy petitions in an effort to prevent the foreclosure sale. In the most recent Chapter 13 case, Nationstar moved for relief from the automatic stay to proceed with the sale. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey granted Nationstar’s motion. Adams appealed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, reasoning that Adams was seeking to overturn a state-court judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and held that, while the District Court erred in applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, Adams’s claims were nonetheless precluded under New Jersey law. The Third Circuit clarified that Rooker-Feldman is a narrow doctrine and does not bar jurisdiction in this context; instead, principles of claim preclusion apply because Adams’s arguments had already been litigated and decided in state court. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order insofar as it upheld the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to lift the automatic stay. View "In re: Adams" on Justia Law

The case involves the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and Delaware BSA, LLC, which filed for bankruptcy in 2020 due to numerous sexual abuse claims. The bankruptcy plan, confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court, includes the creation of a Settlement Trust funded by the sale of certain assets and contributions from BSA and other nondebtors to pay abuse claimants. The plan also includes nonconsensual third-party releases, which release claims against nondebtors without the claimants' consent.The District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation order, and the plan became effective in April 2023. Four groups of appellants, including abuse claimants and insurers, appealed the decision. The Lujan and Dumas & Vaughn (D&V) Claimants, representing 140 abuse victims, sought to reverse the confirmation order and invalidate the plan, arguing that the nonconsensual third-party releases are impermissible under the Bankruptcy Code. The Certain Insurers and Allianz Insurers sought narrower relief, requesting modifications to the plan to preserve their rights and defenses under their insurance policies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the Lujan and D&V Claimants' appeals as statutorily moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), which protects good-faith purchasers of estate assets from reversal or modification on appeal if the sale was not stayed. The court found that the nonconsensual third-party releases were integral to the insurance policy buyback, and reversing the confirmation order would affect the validity of the sale.The court also considered the appeals of the Certain Insurers and Allianz Insurers. It concluded that the Certain Insurers' rights and defenses under their insurance policies were adequately preserved by the plan and confirmation order. However, the court found that the judgment reduction clause in the confirmation order impermissibly released the Allianz Insurers' claims without their consent, violating the Supreme Court's decision in Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Harrington. The court reversed the District Court's judgment regarding the Allianz Insurers' claims and remanded for further proceedings to modify the judgment reduction clause. View "In re: Boy Scouts of America and Delaware BSA LLC" on Justia Law

Mesabi Metallics Company LLC (Mesabi) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2016 and emerged successfully in 2017. During the bankruptcy proceedings, Mesabi initiated an adversary proceeding against Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. (Cliffs), alleging tortious interference, antitrust violations, and other claims. Mesabi sought to unseal certain documents obtained from Cliffs during discovery, which had been filed under seal pursuant to a protective order. Cliffs opposed the motion, arguing that the documents should remain sealed under Bankruptcy Code § 107, not the common law right of access.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware applied the common law standard from In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, concluding that Cliffs had not met the burden to keep the documents sealed. The court recognized the potential for a different interpretation and certified the question for direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The Third Circuit held that the sealing of documents in bankruptcy cases is governed by § 107 of the Bankruptcy Code, not the common law right of access. The court clarified that § 107 imposes a distinct burden for sealing documents, requiring protection of trade secrets or confidential commercial information if disclosure would cause competitive harm. The court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's order and remanded for application of the correct standard.Additionally, the Third Circuit addressed a separate motion by Greg Heyblom to intervene and unseal the documents. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to grant Heyblom's motions while the appeal was pending, as it would interfere with the appellate court's jurisdiction. The orders granting Heyblom's motions were vacated. View "In re: ESML Holdings Inc v. Mesabi Metallics Company LLC" on Justia Law

Chenault-Vaughan Family Partnership ("Chenault"), a royalty interest holder in a Texas mineral estate, sued Centennial Resources Operating, LLC ("Centennial"), the site operator, for wrongly withholding royalties. The Bankruptcy Court awarded summary judgment to Centennial. Chenault appealed to the District Court, where the parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment, and Chenault appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The Third Circuit first addressed whether the Magistrate Judge had jurisdiction to enter final judgment in the bankruptcy appeal. The court concluded that, with the consent of the parties and a referral by the district court, a magistrate judge may enter final judgment in a bankruptcy appeal. This conclusion was supported by the broad consent authority granted to magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the repeal of the statutory provision that previously prohibited such referrals, and the supervisory authority retained by Article III judges.On the merits, the Third Circuit reviewed the Bankruptcy Court’s summary judgment on two claims: trespass to try title and royalties under the Texas Natural Resources Code ("TNRC"). The court affirmed the summary judgment for Centennial on the trespass-to-try-title claim, finding that Centennial did not unlawfully enter the land and dispossess Chenault, as Luxe, a cotenant, had the right to extract minerals and permit Centennial to operate.However, the court vacated the summary judgment on the TNRC claim. The court found that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Centennial was obligated to pay Unit B royalties to Chenault, particularly concerning the Division Order and Centennial’s knowledge of MDC’s non-signature on the Unit B JOA. The case was remanded to the Magistrate Judge with instructions to remand to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings on the TNRC claim. View "In re: MTE Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

The appellants, Robin and Louie Joseph Aquilino, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in April 2020 and retained the law firm Spector Gadon Rosen & Vinci P.C. (Spector Gadon) as their counsel. They agreed to pay a flat fee of $3,500 and a $335 filing fee, which Spector Gadon disclosed to the Bankruptcy Court. However, due to the complexity of the case, Spector Gadon billed the Aquilinos for additional post-petition services, resulting in a fee agreement of $113,000, which was not disclosed to the Bankruptcy Court as required by 11 U.S.C. § 329(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 2016(b).The Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey found that Spector Gadon violated the disclosure requirements and sanctioned the firm by ordering the disgorgement of collected fees and cancellation of the remaining fee agreement. Spector Gadon appealed, and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reversed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, concluding that Spector Gadon was entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the Bankruptcy Court had "core" jurisdiction over the fee disclosure issue under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). The Third Circuit held that the Seventh Amendment did not entitle Spector Gadon to a jury trial in the § 329(a) proceeding because the sanctions imposed were equitable in nature, designed to restore the status quo, and did not involve legal claims. The Third Circuit also found that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions, as it considered all relevant factors, including the Debtors' misconduct.The Third Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment and reinstated the Bankruptcy Court's sanctions order. View "In re Aquilino" on Justia Law

Mesabi Metallics Company LLC (Mesabi) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2016 and emerged successfully in 2017. During the bankruptcy proceedings, Mesabi initiated an adversary proceeding against Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. (Cliffs), alleging tortious interference, antitrust violations, and civil conspiracy. Mesabi claimed Cliffs engaged in anti-competitive conduct to impede Mesabi's business operations. To facilitate discovery, the parties entered a stipulated protective order allowing documents to be designated as confidential. Mesabi later moved to unseal certain documents filed under seal to support a petition in the Minnesota Court of Appeals.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, applying the common law right of access, held that Cliffs had not met the burden to keep the documents sealed. The court relied on the Third Circuit's precedent in In re Avandia, which requires a showing that disclosure would cause a clearly defined and serious injury. Recognizing potential ambiguity in the law, the Bankruptcy Court certified the question for direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The Third Circuit clarified that the sealing of documents in bankruptcy cases is governed by 11 U.S.C. § 107, not the common law right of access. Section 107 imposes a distinct burden, requiring protection of trade secrets or confidential commercial information without the need for balancing public and private interests. The court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's decision and remanded for application of the correct standard under § 107. Additionally, the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to grant a third party's motion to intervene and unseal documents while the appeal was pending, vacating those orders as well. View "ESML Holdings Inc v. Mesabi Metallics Compay LLC," on Justia Law

The case involves the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (the "Fund") seeking to collect withdrawal liability payments from several companies (the "Related Employers") that were commonly controlled with Borden Dairy Company of Ohio, LLC and Borden Transport Company of Ohio, LLC (the "Borden Ohio entities"). The Borden Ohio entities had previously withdrawn from the Fund and entered into a settlement agreement with the Fund during an arbitration process, which revised their withdrawal liability payments. The Borden Ohio entities later went bankrupt and ceased making payments, prompting the Fund to seek payment from the Related Employers.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the Fund's suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ruling that the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) does not provide a statutory cause of action to enforce a private settlement agreement. The District Court also concluded that the Fund failed to meet the procedural requirements for notice and demand outlined in 29 U.S.C. § 1399(b)(2).The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the settlement agreement is properly understood as a revision to the withdrawal liability assessment under the MPPAA. Since no employer began an arbitration with respect to the revised assessment, the Fund has a cause of action under 29 U.S.C. § 1401(b)(1). The Court also determined that the Fund met the procedural requirements for notice and demand under 29 U.S.C. § 1399(b)(1). Consequently, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's order dismissing the Fund's suit and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension v. Laguna Dairy S.de R.L. de C.V." on Justia Law

Promise Healthcare Group, LLC and its affiliates operated various hospital and nursing facilities. During their Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, Patrick Wassmann filed a $10 million medical malpractice claim based on treatment he received at one of the facilities between March 15 and June 9, 2017. Robert Michaelson, the liquidating trustee, objected to Wassmann’s claim, arguing it was time-barred because it became untimely by the time the Trustee objected to it and it was evaluated. The Trustee also argued that Wassmann’s claim should be barred because he failed to file a timely state court complaint in addition to his Chapter 11 proof of claim.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware set a bar date of May 31, 2019, for filing proof of claims. Wassmann filed his proof of claim on January 4, 2019. The court confirmed the Debtors’ reorganization plan on September 17, 2020, which went into effect on October 1, 2020. Wassmann had until November 1, 2020, to proceed against the Debtors in state court but chose to seek recovery in the Bankruptcy Court alone. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Trustee’s motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the claims allowance process under 11 U.S.C. § 502 evaluates claims as of the petition date and that a timely proof of claim does not require a separate timely non-bankruptcy complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order. The Third Circuit held that the enforceability of a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) is determined as of the petition date, not the date of the court’s evaluation. The court also held that a creditor who has filed a timely proof of claim is not required to file a separate, timely non-bankruptcy action to preserve the claim. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Court correctly allowed Wassmann’s claim as it was timely as of the petition date. View "In re: Promise Healthcare Group LLC" on Justia Law