Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Civic Partners appealed the bankruptcy court's order dismissing its chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Northwest Bank holds a mortgage against the Promenade and an assignment of rents to secure a promissory note executed by Civic Partners. The City also holds a mortgage against the Promenade to secure a promissory note executed by Civic Partners. Main Street leases and occupies the majority of the space in the Promenade. The BAP concluded that the original lease, not the amended lease, controls Civic Partners' relationship with Main Street. In keeping with its earlier rulings, the bankruptcy court did not consider the possibility that Civic Partners might be able to propose a confirmable plan predicated on the original lease. This is a relevant factor that should be given significant weight in determining whether to dismiss Civic Partners' chapter 11 case. Accordingly, the BAP reversed the bankruptcy court's order dismissing Civic Partners' chapter 11 bankruptcy case and remanded for further proceedings. View "Civic Partners Sioux City, LLC v. Main Street Theatres" on Justia Law

After Old GM filed for bankruptcy, New GM emerged. This case involves one of the consequences of the GM bankruptcy. Beginning in February 2014, New GM began recalling cars due to a defect in their ignition switches. Many of the cars in question were built years before the GM bankruptcy. Where individuals might have had claims against Old GM, a ʺfree and clearʺ provision in the bankruptcy courtʹs sale order barred those same claims from being brought against New GM as the successor corporation. Various individuals nonetheless initiated class action lawsuits against New GM, asserting ʺsuccessor liabilityʺ claims and seeking damages for losses and injuries arising from the ignition switch defect and other defects. The bankruptcy court enforced the Sale Order to enjoin many of these claims against New GM. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the Sale Order; the ʺfree and clearʺ provision covers pre‐closing accident claims and economic loss claims based on the ignition switch and other defects, but does not cover independent claims or Used Car Purchasersʹ claims; the court found no clear error in the bankruptcy court's finding that Old GM knew or should have known with reasonable diligence about the defect, and individuals with claims arising out of the ignition switch defect were entitled to notice by direct mail or some equivalent, as required by procedural due process; because enforcing the Sale Order would violate procedural due process in these circumstances, the bankruptcy court erred in granting New GMʹs motion to enforce and these plaintiffs cannot be bound by the terms of the Sales Order; and the bankruptcy courtʹs decision on equitable mootness was advisory. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "In re Motors Liquidation Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing her discrimination complaint on the ground of judicial estoppel. The district court found that plaintiff failed to disclose this suit and related administrative proceedings on the schedules she filed with the bankruptcy court. In exercising its decision to invoke judicial estoppel, the district court relied on the court's opinion in Moses v. Howard University Hospital. In Moses, the court wrote: “every circuit that has addressed the issue has found that judicial estoppel is justified to bar a debtor from pursuing a cause of action in district court where that debtor deliberately fails to disclose the pending suit in a bankruptcy case.” Moses held that a debtor could not avoid judicial estoppel if he omitted his pending cause of action but reported “pending lawsuits that, unlike the instant case, reduced the overall value of his assets through wage garnishment.” The district court held that plaintiff was in the same position as the plaintiff in Moses. The court concluded that the district court properly invoked judicial estoppel to grant summary judgment in favor of defendants, and the court affirmed the judgment. The court noted that other courts of appeals have evaluated the frequent contentions of bankruptcy debtors in light of the Supreme Court’s observation – in a case that did not involve inadvertence or mistake – that “it may be appropriate to resist judicial estoppel when a party’s earlier position was based on inadvertence or mistake.” The court saw no need to take sides in this debate. View "Marshall v. Honeywell Tech. Sys." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Midland under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692e, alleging that Midland violated the FDCPA by filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court declined to extend the FDCPA to time-barred proofs of claim, concluding that an accurate and complete proof of claim on a time-barred debt is not false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable under the FDCPA. The court explained that the bankruptcy code provides for a claims resolution process and these protections against harassment and deception satisfy the relevant concerns of the FDCPA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Nelson v. Midland Credit Mgmt." on Justia Law

GT owed its bank, Comerica, $7.8 million, secured by a lien on all of GT’s assets. GT filed for bankruptcy. Its assets were auctioned off. If the assets sold for more than $7.8 million, the excess would go to the estate. If the assets sold for less than $7.8 million, all of the purchase money would go to Comerica, which would have an unsecured claim for the difference. The successful bidder would take the assets free of Comerica’s lien. Arlington's $2.7 million bid was successful. The bankruptcy trustee believed that Arlington had colluded with GT insiders to keep the price down, and hired the Law Firms to pursue claims under 11 U.S.C. 363(n) to undo the sale or recover the difference. The trustee contended that GT’s assets had been worth $5 million. The GT insiders settled, but Arlington won at trial and was awarded costs. Arlington became a general unsecured creditor for about $5,000. The Law Firms asked the bankruptcy court to approve their fees. Arlington objected, contending that the Firms’ services had not been reasonably likely to benefit the estate, 11 U.S.C. 330(a)(4)(A)(ii)(I).), reasoning that the trustee did not allege that GT’s assets were worth more than $7.8 million. The bankruptcy court and district court agreed with the Law Firms and approved the fee petitions. The Seventh Circuit remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing. Arlington did not show that it stands to benefit if the fees are denied. View "Arlington Capital, LLC v. Bainton McCarthy, LLP" on Justia Law

Attorney James Robinson, Attorney Elbert Walton, and Critique Services, LLC appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's judgment on debtor's motion to disgorge attorney's fees. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that, assuming that debtor's claim was property of her Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate, the Trustee abandoned the property. The court also concluded that Appellant's motion to recuse was untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455(a); even if the motions to recuse were timely, Appellants have not demonstrated that Judge Rendlen’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned; the bankruptcy court did not err in docketing debtor's pro se complaint as a motion to disgorge attorney's fees; Critique Services had been properly served and discovery requests were properly directed to it; debtor's claim is not moot; because settlement in this case was never completed, the bankruptcy court retained authority to order debtor to accept discovery and to sanction Appellants for failing to comply with the court’s orders; and Appellants were not entitled to benefit from the doctrine of unclean hands. Finally, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by imposing significant sanctions on Appellants, including civil penalties and suspension. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Critique Services, LLC v. Steward" on Justia Law

As an individual and doing business as Halloween Costume World, Appellant filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Trustee filed a motion to dismiss or convert the case to a liquidation proceeding under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. The district court granted the motion. The district court affirmed, concluding that cause existed to convert the case to Chapter 7 under section 11 U.S.C. 1112(b)(4)(A). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no error of law or abuse of discretion by the bankruptcy court in converting Appellant’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case to Chapter 7. View "Hoover, III v. Harrington" on Justia Law

This appeal as of right arose from defendants' alleged breach of a settlement agreement executed by defendants and one of the plaintiffs in this action, Globe Motor Company (Globe), to resolve prior litigation between the parties. Shortly after defendants sent two checks totaling $75,000 to plaintiffs to settle the earlier action, a Trustee appointed to represent the estate of an insolvent Minnesota entity brought an adversary proceeding against plaintiffs. The Trustee demanded that plaintiffs disgorge the settlement funds, on the ground that those funds had belonged to the bankrupt entity, not to defendants, and that the transactions were therefore voidable under provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.A. 544 and 548. Plaintiffs paid $22,500 to resolve the bankruptcy Trustee's claim. Plaintiffs filed this action against defendants, seeking to recover the money that they paid to settle the bankruptcy proceeding as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The motion judge entered summary judgment for plaintiffs on their breach of contract claim. An Appellate Division panel affirmed that determination, with one judge dissenting. After its review, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the motion judge improperly granted summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor. The Court concluded that the record did not establish plaintiffs' right to judgment as a matter of law. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "GlobeMotor Company v. Igdalev" on Justia Law

Stoller, the beneficiary of a trust that holds title to a house, assigned his beneficial interest to his daughter but reserved a “power of direction” with the right to obtain loans for himself, secured by the property. He directed the trust to rent out the property; he received the income. IStoller filed for bankruptcy. None of his filings mentioned the property. A question specifically asked about “all property owned by another person that [he] [held] or control[led].” Under penalty of perjury, he answered “none.” Stoller was charged with two counts of knowingly and fraudulently concealing property that belonged to a bankruptcy estate, 18 U.S.C. 152(1), and seven counts of knowingly and fraudulently making a false statement in a bankruptcy proceeding, 18 U.S.C. 152(3). Represented by an appointed lawyer, he pled guilty to one count of making a false statement; the government dismissed the remaining counts. Before sentencing, Stoller considered moving to withdraw his plea on the ground that he was not mentally competent. A new lawyer was appointed. Stoller was examined by a board‐certified neuropsychologist, who concluded that Stoller was competent to plead guilty. Stoller’s lawyer then unsuccessfully moved to withdraw the plea based on alleged defects in the plea colloquy. Stoller was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Stoller was competent to plead guilty, his plea was not coerced, the colloquy included most of the basics, and Stoller was not prejudiced by any deficiency. View "United States v. Stoller" on Justia Law

In 2011, the bankruptcy court confirmed a Chapter 13 plan, under which the debtors were to pay $660 per month to the trustee for seven months, and then, for 53 months, $758 per month, later reduced to $670 per month. From these payments, the trustee would pay the claims of secured creditors and distribute approximately $22,000 to general unsecured creditors. In 2013, the trustee received the debtors’ 2012 income tax return, showing that their income had increased by $50,000. The trustee moved to modify the plan under 11 U.S.C. 1329, to increase the monthly payments to $1,416 per month for the 23 remaining months. The bankruptcy court denied the motion, stating that the Code did not allow modification of a Chapter 13 plan for the cited reasons, and that, even if the court had the power to modify the plan, the facts did not support the request. The district court upheld the bankruptcy court’s determination that it lacked authority to grant the motion. The Seventh Circuit vacated. While section 1329 does not explicitly identify the circumstances under which modification is appropriate and no Code provision expressly permits modification when a change in financial circumstances makes an increase affordable, it does not follow that modification in this circumstance is forbidden. View "Germeraad v. Powers" on Justia Law