Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

This case involves several familial disputes stemming from an employment lawsuit, an alleged extramarital affair, the death of the family patriarch, and secret recordings. On appeal, debtor challenges the district court’s order affirming a bankruptcy court judgment that declared nondischargeable a Texas state court judgment against him. The court concluded that debtor's sanctionable state court conduct relates back to the conduct alleged in the original complaint; the district court did not err in granting partial summary judgment on the issue of sanction orders based on collateral estoppel; the court rejected debtor's contention that the bankruptcy court erred in granting partial summary judgment on Appellees’ claims under 8 U.S.C. 523(a)(2) for fraud, finding no clear error in the district court's ruling and the bankruptcy court's account of the evidence; the bankruptcy court did not err in finding the defamation judgment nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious conduct; the bankruptcy court did not err in applying collateral estoppel to the jury's damages findings for both fraud and defamation; and the court dismissed debtor's claims as meritless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Scarbrough v. Purser" on Justia Law

Rosenberg is the “principal architect” NMI and NMI Holding, which are affiliated with limited partnerships (LPs) that operate medical imaging centers. To finance the purchase of medical imaging equipment, the LPs entered into leases with DVI entities. DVI Financial was the initial servicer of the leases and U.S. Bank acted as trustee. When DVI Financial entered bankruptcy in 2004, Lyon acquired the servicing contracts. During state court litigation over money owed under the leases, DVI filed involuntary bankruptcy petitions against Rosenberg, NMI, and NMI Holding. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petitions because the DVI entities were not Rosenberg’s creditors. Rosenberg then filed an adversary action under 11 U.S.C. 303(i), alleging bad faith filing. Rosenberg obtained awards of fees and costs, $1.1 million in compensatory damages, and $5 million in punitive damages. Rosenberg’s wife, the Rosenberg Trust, and other Rosenberg Affiliates then sought damages based on the involuntary bankruptcy petitions, alleging tortious interference with contracts and business relationships. NMI Real Estate Partnerships owned the medical imaging facilities subject to mortgages. Rosenberg Affiliates alleged that the involuntary bankruptcy filings were intended to cause those Partnerships to default on their underlying mortgages; all but one of the properties have been lost. The district court dismissed, finding the claim preempted by the Bankruptcy Code. The Third Circuit reversed, stating that section 303(i) does not preempt the state law claims of nondebtors predicated on the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition. View "Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables XVII LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order affirming eight rulings of the bankruptcy court. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding an evidentiary show-cause hearing where plaintiff received notice of the civil contempt allegations against him and the bankruptcy court gave plaintiff the opportunity to testify, submit evidence, and rebut the allegations of civil contempt at his show-cause hearing; plaintiff's due process rights were not violated when the bankruptcy court conducted a show-cause hearing on his civil contempt without appointing plaintiff an attorney; the bankruptcy court did not err by imposing coercive and compensatory civil contempt sanctions; and the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction over the allegations of civil contempt against plaintiff and the authority to enter a final order, not merely a proposed judgment, finding plaintiff in civil contempt. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects except as to the amount of the fee award. The court remanded for the bankruptcy court to award a fee based on the work the Trustee performed pursuant to Appellee Mitchell’s motion for contempt, and to determine whether the Trustee may pursue its adversary claim at this late date. View "Gowdy v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

After Kimberly Adkins and Chaille Dubois filed separate Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions in the Bankruptcy Court, Atlas filed proofs of claim in their bankruptcy cases based on debts that were barred by Maryland’s statute of limitations. At issue is whether Atlas violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., by filing proofs of claim based on time-barred debts. The court held that Atlas’s conduct does not violate the FDCPA because filing a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy based on a debt that is time-barred does not violate the FDCPA when the statute of limitations does not extinguish the debt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dubois v. Atlas Acquisitions LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the bankruptcy court's approval of a settlement agreement regarding a parcel of land in Berkeley, California, but failed to seek a stay of the sale order. The district court dismissed the appeal as moot. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court had the discretion to apply 11 U.S.C. 363 to the settlement involving a sale of the estate’s potential claims, and did not clearly err in determining that First-Citizens was a good faith purchaser of those claims. Therefore, under section 363(m), the court concluded that the sale may not be modified or set aside on appeal unless it was stayed pending appeal. Because plaintiff failed to seek a stay, the appeal is moot. The court did not reach plaintiff's challenges to the propriety of the sale of claims under section 363, as such an analysis would require the court to impermissibly reach the underlying merits of the settlement. View "Adeli v. Barclay" on Justia Law

The Fergusons proposed to repay their farm debts under Bankruptcy Code Chapter 12, including a $300,000 loan from First Community Bank, secured by a mortgage plus a lien on farm equipment and crops, and a $176,000 loan from FS, secured by a junior lien on equipment and crops. The bankruptcy judge approved a sale of equipment and crops, which yielded $238,000. The Bank, as senior creditor, demanded those proceeds. FS argued that the Bank should be required to recoup through the mortgage, allowing FS to be repaid from the equipment sale; "marshaling" is not mentioned in the Code, but available under state law. The Fergusons wanted reorganization, to keep their farm. The judge awarded the Bank $238,000. The parties could not agree on a repayment plan. The judge converted the case to a Chapter 7 liquidation. The trustee sold the farm for $411,000, paying the Bank the balance of its claim. About $261,000 remains. FS wanted to be treated as a secured creditor and repeated its request for marshaling. The equipment sale generated federal and state tax bills, with priority among unsecured creditors, 11 U.S.C. 507(a)(8). FS’s status—as a secured creditor with marshaling, or a general unsecured creditor without it—determines whether the taxes will be paid during the bankruptcy. Tax debts are not dischargeable; the Fergusons opposed marshaling. The bankruptcy judge approved FS’s request, stating that he would have approved the original request had he known that the farm would be sold. The district court remanded, stating that marshaling is proper only if two funds exist simultaneously. One fund (equipment and crop proceeds) is gone, only the land sale fund still exists. The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; the remand was not a final order. View "Ferguson v. West Central FS, Inc." on Justia Law

For six decades, the Fair family operated Fair Finance Company in Ohio. In 2002, Durham and Cochran purchased the Company in a leveraged buyout and transformed its factoring operation into a front for a Ponzi scheme, to fund their extravagant lifestyles and struggling business ventures. Textron allegedly assisted in the concealment and perpetuation of the Ponzi scheme. In 2009, the scheme collapsed. Durham, Cochran, and the Company’s CFO, were indicted for wire fraud, securities fraud, and conspiracy. The Company entered involuntary bankruptcy. The Chapter 7 Trustee brought adversary proceedings on behalf of the estate for the Ponzi scheme’s unwitting investors. The district court granted Textron’s motion to dismiss. The Sixth Circuit reversed with respect to a claimed actual fraudulent transfer, holding that the Trustee sufficiently alleged facts to demonstrate an ambiguity in a 2004 financing and funding contract between the Company and Textron. The court held that the Trustee was not required to plead facts in anticipation of Textron’s potential in pari delicto affirmative defense to survive a motion to dismiss a civil conspiracy claim. In light of the reinstatement of those claims, the court reversed the dismissal of equitable subordination and disallowance claims. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Trustee’s constructive fraudulent transfer claim as time barred. View "Bash v. Textron Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

David Freeman and his cohort of investors, including William Del Biaggio, III, purchased the Nashville Predators, a National Hockey League (NHL) team in Nashville, Tennessee. As a result of the sale, the Predators became wholly owned and operated by Nashville Hockey Club Limited Partnership, LLC, which is in turn wholly owned by Predators Holdings, LLC (Holdings). Several months after the sale, Freeman learned that Del Biaggio never had the funds to support his guarantees and that the $25 million Del Biaggio already invested was in fact money he had embezzled from his clients. Del Biaggio filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy which gave rise to the current proceeding. Freeman filed a general unsecured claim against Del Biaggio’s bankruptcy estate seeking damages of an undetermined amount arising from his fraud in the Holdings transaction. In response, the Liquidating Trust Committee of the Del Biaggio Liquidating Trust, the entity charged with prosecuting claims objections in Del Biaggio’s bankruptcy, filed a counterclaim against Freeman and sought summary judgment. The bankruptcy court granted the Committee’s motion for summary judgment, finding Freeman’s claim was subject to mandatory subordination under 11 U.S.C. 510(b). The court concluded that Freeman's claim is a damages claim, and the district court did not err in applying section 510(b) to his claim against Del Biaggio because his claim is one "arising from the purchase or sale" of Holdings. Furthermore, Freeman's claim is not limited to corporate debtors. The court rejected Freeman's remaining claims and affirmed the judgment. View "Liquidating Trust Comm. v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Robert Harris sought to recover in federal bankruptcy court a real estate broker’s commission that he alleged he was owed by Rosa Scarcelli and Oak Knoll Associates, LP (together, Oak Knoll). The bankruptcy court granted Oak Knoll’s motion for summary judgment, concluding, as a matter of law, that Harris was not owed a commission. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Oak Knoll, as (1) Harris’s proof of claim for his unpaid commission was unenforceable against Oak Knoll; and (2) Harris failed to identify a right that would entitle him to equitable relief. View "Harris v. Scarcelli" on Justia Law

Almost three years after her involvement in a motor vehicle accident with Petitioner, Respondent brought a personal injury action against Petitioner and his employer (together, Petitioners). Between the time of the accident and the filing of this action, Respondent filed personal bankruptcy and was discharged from her debts. By operation of bankruptcy law, Respondent’s claim became the property of her bankruptcy estate. Issues regarding the claim were litigated in both the circuit court and the bankruptcy court. Eventually, the bankruptcy court granted Respondent’s request to re-open and re-vested her with the claim as of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Meanwhile, the circuit court awarded summary judgment to Petitioners, ruling that Respondent lacked standing. The court of special appeals reversed, concluding that, because of the bankruptcy court’s ruling, Respondent was an appropriate plaintiff on a timely-filed complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) summary judgment was inappropriate where the circuit court failed to take into account the legal effect of the bankruptcy court’s decision to re-vest Respondent with her claim against Petitioners; and (2) as a result of the bankruptcy court’s decision, Respondent had standing to prosecute the complaint. View "Morton v. Schlotzhauer" on Justia Law