Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Debtor, a construction business, filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, which was converted to chapter 7. A The Bank holds a valid, first-priority security interest in all of the Debtor’s assets, including accounts receivable. The Trustee discovered that checks payable to the Debtor had been negotiated and deposited into the personal account of Hartford, the father of Debtor’s principal, totalling $36,389.89. Before initiating adversary litigation, the Trustee engaged in settlement talks with Hartford, who agreed to pay $36,389.89 to the estate and release the estate from all claims involving the transfers. While the Trustee was pursuing settlement., the Bank obtained an order modifying the automatic stay to allow it to exercise its state law remedies with respect to collateral, then filed suit to recover from Hartford the value of the checks. A state court entered judgment in favor of the Bank. The next day, the Trustee successfully moved for approval of the Hartford settlement. The Bank objected. The bankruptcy court rejected the Bank’s argument that the order granting relief from the automatic stay allowed it to pursue the fraudulent transfer action in state court. The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the bankruptcy court entered no final judgment or appealable order. View "Schaumburg Bank & Trust Co. v. Alsterda" on Justia Law

The Hargers were Jones’ neighbors. Police reports indicate that there were issues between the neighbors for several years. Grad worked for CarMeds, ostensibly owned by Jones’ mother and run by Jones, occasionally visiting Jones’ home. Grad claimed to have been assaulted after such a meeting. At the police station, Grad identified Harger from a photo line-up. Ultimately, charges were dropped. The Hargers sued Grad and Jones, asserting conspiracy to have Harger falsely arrested. Meanwhile, Jones filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Hoover, the Hargers’ attorney, moved to modify the automatic stay and filed an adversary complaint, alleging that Jones's debt was non-dischargeable and seeking denial of discharge based on the assertion that Jones lied about the ownership of CarMeds. The bankruptcy court later dismissed the adversary proceeding on the Hargers’ motion, and set a hearing sua sponte, directing the Hargers and Hoover to show that they had reasonable grounds for filing. The court found that Hoover violated Rule 9011 by filing without specific evidence and made intentional misrepresentations in his filings; directed him to pay $26,000 in attorneys’ fees; revoked Hoover’s electronic bankruptcy filing authority; and referred the matter for possible prosecution. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Panel reversed, holding that the bankruptcy court relied on clearly erroneous factual findings ;erred as a matter of law in awarding fees on a sua sponte basis; and abused its discretion in imposing any sanctions. View "In re: Jones" on Justia Law

RayTrans Holdings, Inc., through the Chapter 7 Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of RayTrans Holdings, cross-claimed against RayTrans Distribution Services, Inc., Echo Global Logistics, Inc., and Echo/RT Holdings, LLC (collectively, Defendants) seeking avoidance of certain transfers among Defendants, an accounting, and injunction prohibiting any further transfers of RayTrans assets by Defendants until all creditors of RayTrans Holdings were paid in full. The Court of Chancery granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the cross-claims, holding (1) the Trustee does not have standing to sue for fraudulent transfer on behalf of RayTrans Distribution; (2) RayTrans Distribution’s transfer of assets was not fraudulent; and (3) the Trustee’s request for leave to amend the cross-claims is denied. View "Spring Real Estate, LLC v. Echo/RT Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

Twenty-one months after plaintiff filed an employment discrimination case against US Steel, she filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. When U.S. Steel learned of the bankruptcy case - that plaintiff's Chapter 7 petition had not disclosed the employment-discrimination claims she was pursuing and that the Chapter 7 Trustee was treating the bankruptcy as a “no asset” case and had filed a Report of No Distribution with the bankruptcy court - it moved the district court alternatively to dismiss the case or for summary judgment. The district court concluded that the doctrine of judicial estoppel as formulated in Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., and Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., controlled its decision. The court concluded that New Hampshire v. Maine did not govern the district court's application of judicial estoppel in this case. Therefore, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the district court erred in failing to give the New Hampshire factors appropriate weight and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring her claims on the basis of judicial estoppel. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not err in applying Eleventh Circuit precedent, namely Burnes and Robinson, where the bankruptcy court in those cases accepted the debtor's failure to disclose as property of the bankruptcy estate claims the debtor was litigating in federal district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Slater v. US Steel Corp." on Justia Law

Steven Fustolo’s affiliate companies issued four promissory notes to Patton Drive, LLC. Fustolo personally guaranteed two of the notes. When the principal debtors defaulted on all four notes, Patton drive sued Fustolo. The Massachusetts state court found Fustolo liable for breach of contract and entered judgment against Fustolo. Fustolo appealed, challenging the interest due. Meanwhile, Patton Drive joined with two of Fustolo’s other creditors to file a petition seeking to place Fustolo into involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Fustolo, in turn, asserted that Patton Drive was not qualified it to serve as a petitioning creditor because his pending state court appeal subjected Patton Drive’s judgment to “bona fide dispute as to liability or amount.” The bankruptcy court allowed Patton Drive to join in initiating involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against Fustolo. The district court affirmed, finding that Fustolo’s state court appeal could not raise a bona fide dispute as to Patton Drive’s claim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that because the amount of Fustolo’s liability on the guaranteed notes was not subject to bona fide dispute, and because Patton Drive’s claim on the guaranteed notes could be considered separately from Patton Drive’s claim on the judgment within which its underlying contract claims were submerged, Patton Drive qualified as a petitioning creditor. View "Fustolo v. 50 Thomas Patton Dr., LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioners executed a promissory note and mortgage in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. The notary acknowledgment on the mortgage was left blank. The mortgage was subsequently recorded with the county recorder. The interest in the mortgage was later assigned to Bank. Thereafter, Petitioners initiated a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and commenced an adversary proceeding seeking to avoid the mortgage as defectively executed. The bankruptcy court determined that its interpretation of Ohio Rev. Code 1301.401 would be dispositive in this case and certified to the Supreme Court questions of state law concerning whether section 1301.401 has an effect on the case. The Supreme Court answered that section 1301.401 applies to all recorded mortgages in Ohio and acts to provide constructive notice to the world of the existence and contents of a recorded mortgage that was deficiently executed under Ohio Rev. Code 5301.01. View "In re Messer" on Justia Law

This appeal concerns whether a Georgia statute exempts the assets in a health savings account (HSA) from inclusion in a bankruptcy estate. The court certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia: (1) Does a debtor’s health savings account constitute a right to receive a “disability, illness, or unemployment benefit” for the purposes of O.C.G.A. 44-13-100(a)(2)(C)? (2) Does a debtor’s health savings account constitute a right to receive a “payment under a pension, annuity, or similar plan or contract” for the purposes of O.C.G.A. 44-13-100(a)(2)(E)? (3) Is a debtor’s right to receive a payment from a health savings account “on account of illness [or] disability” for the purposes of O.C.G.A. 44-13-100(a)(2)(E)? View "Mooney v. Webster" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of federal laws. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff's failure to disclose her claims in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings judicially estopped her from pursuing them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Van Horn v. Martin" on Justia Law

Redondo Construction Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Through the proceedings, Redondo filed three complaints against the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority for money owed under construction contracts, alleging that it was entitled to damages and prejudgment interest. The bankruptcy court ruled in Redondo’s favor and found that Redondo was entitled to prejudgment interest. The First Circuit vacated the award of prejudgment interest and remanded. On remand, the bankruptcy court awarded Redondo prejudgment interest on its contract claims under Article 1061 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, accruing through the payment of principal. The Authority moved to amend the judgment. The bankruptcy court denied the Authority’s motion, and the district court affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the judgment, holding (1) Redondo did not forfeit its claim to prejudgment interest under Article 1061; but (2) 28 U.S.C. 1961 exclusively controls awards of postjudgment interest in federal court, and therefore, the bankruptcy court should not have extended the prejudgment interest accrual period past the entry of judgment. Remanded for a calculation of section 1961 interest and a recalculation of Article 1061 interest. View "P.R. Highway & Transp. v. Redondo Constr. Corp." on Justia Law

Lakeridge has one member, MBP. MBP is managed by a board of five members, one of whom is Kathie Bartlett. Bartlett shares a close business and personal relationship with Dr. Robert Rabkin. Lakeridge filed for bankruptcy and US Bank held a fully secured claim worth about $10 million and MBP held an unsecured claim worth $2.76 million. After MBP's board decided to sell its unsecured claim, Rabkin purchased the claim for $5000. US Bank subsequently moved to designate Rabkin's claim and disallow it for plan voting purposes. The bankruptcy court held Rabkin was not a non-statutory insider and that Rabkin did not purchase MBP's claim in bad faith. However, the bankruptcy court designated Rabkin’s claim and disallowed it for plan voting, because it determined Rabkin had become a statutory insider by acquiring a claim from MBP. Lakeridge and Rabkin both appealed, and US Bank cross-appealed. The BAP reversed the finding that Rabkin had become a statutory insider as a matter of law by acquiring MBP’s claim and affirmed the findings that Rabkin was not a non-statutory insider and that the claim assignment was not made in bad faith. The BAP held that insider status cannot be assigned and must be determined for each individual “on a case-by-case basis, after the consideration of various factors.” Finally, the BAP held Rabkin could vote to accept the Lakeridge plan under 11 U.S.C. 1129(a)(10), because he was an impaired creditor who was not an insider. The court affirmed the BAP's decision. View "US Bank v. The Village at Lakeridge, LLC" on Justia Law