Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Revel opened an Atlantic City resort-casino, costing $2.4 billion. Revel entered into a 10-year lease with IDEA to run two nightclubs and a beach club. IDEA contributed $16 million of the projected cost of construction in addition to monthly rental payments. The Casino did not turn a profit. Revel filed a “Chapter 22” bankruptcy, seeking permission to sell its assets free of all liens and interests (including leases). The Bankruptcy Court approved and set an auction date. IDEA, concerned that the proposed sale would eliminate the value of its lease notwithstanding its $16 million investment, filed objections. No qualified buyer appeared. The court postponed the auction. A month later, Revel closed the Casino’s doors and barred tenants, IDEA gave notice that it intended to continue operating its beach club and nightclub and expected Revel to honor its obligations to provide uninterrupted utility service. In the meantime Polo agreed to buy the Casino for $90 million. Days before the sale hearing, Revel replied to IDEA’s objections. IDEA appealed an unfavorable order and sought a stay pending appeal, noting that, if the decision were not stayed, its appeal would be moot under 11 U.S.C. 363(m) once the sale closed. The district court denied the motion. The Third Circuit reversed, staying that part of the order that allowed Revel to sell the Casino free of IDEA’s lease. View "In re: Revel AC Inc" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the bankruptcy court's order approving a settlement agreement in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of debtor. At issue was whether a beneficiary of a trust who disagrees with the way the trust was administered by former trustees is a “party in interest” with standing to object to the bankruptcy court’s approval of a settlement agreement between a debtor, creditor entities held by the trust, and the former trustees. The court held that the trust beneficiary does not have party-in-interest standing under 8 U.S.C. 1109(a) to object to the settlement, at least where his interests are adequately represented by a party-in-interest trustee. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of standing. View "Hughes v. Tower Park Props." on Justia Law

W. Steve Smith, trustee of a complex Chapter 7 estate, appealed the bankruptcy court's removal of him as trustee. Smith also appealed his removal from all of his other pending cases. Smith had traveled with his wife and children to New Orleans for an oral argument related to his work as trustee, billing the the firm for work that included estate funds for trip expenses. The district court affirmed. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court applied a proper legal standard, and its determination that Smith’s conduct violated that standard was not clearly erroneous. Therefore, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding cause sufficient to remove Smith as trustee. The court rejected Smith's notice argument as well as his as-applied constitutional argument to section 324(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Finally, the court's ruling moots the issue of whether the bankruptcy and district courts wrongly refused to stay his removal pending appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Smith v. Robbins" on Justia Law

In 2008 the Seymours filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. In 2010 the Seymours filed a personal injury action, based on a 2010 automobile accident that occurred while Seymour was being transported in an ambulance. A 2010 plan modification entailed a reduction in the Seymours’s monthly payment amount based on an allegation that Seymour was unable to work and was only receiving workers’ compensation payments. The Seymours never apprised the bankruptcy court that their circumstances had changed after the 2010 modification. Defendants in the injury action successfully obtained summary judgment, based on estoppel because the Seymours failed to disclose their personal injury action in the bankruptcy proceeding. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed,The fact that the Seymours had a legal duty to disclose this suit and failed to do so does not establish intent to deceive or manipulate the bankruptcy court. The 2010 motion to modify the bankruptcy plan did not evince their awareness of the need to disclose the personal injury cause of action. View "Seymour v. Collins" on Justia Law

A Chapter 7 petition was filed against Connolly in 2001. Shapiro, then the bankruptcy trustee, initiated an adversary proceeding. In 2007, the bankruptcy court concluded that Shapiro and his attorney had breached their discovery obligations due to gross negligence and dismissed Shapiro’s claims with prejudice. Connolly’s unsecured creditors, including Coface, successfully sought to remove Shapiro as trustee. French, Shapiro’s successor, then commenced an adversary proceeding against Shapiro, his law firm, and his professional-liability insurer. The parties reached a court-approved settlement. The bankruptcy court recognized that at least some of the work that Coface paid its attorneys to do substantially benefitted the bankruptcy estate and the unsecured creditors, and contributed greatly to a significant increase in funds that unsecured creditors would receive. Coface sought reimbursement of $164,336.28 in attorney fees and costs under 11 U.S.C. 503(b). The bankruptcy court denied Colface’s motion. The district court agreed. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that administrative expenses are allowable in these circumstances under section 503(b) in a Chapter 7 case. Denying creditors reimbursement of administrative expenses in such circumstances would disincentivize participation in the bankruptcy process and would impugn the fundamental notion of bankruptcy as equitable relief View "Coface Argentina v. McDermott" on Justia Law

The Committee appealed a consolidated district court judgment affirming several bankruptcy court judgments. The court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the Settlement Agreement - a compromise the Trustee made in discharge of his fiduciary duty. The court affirmed the Trustee’s conclusion that the estate’s best interests were better served by the Settlement Agreement than by continued litigation to determine the absolute value of Chase’s secured collateral; for purposes of 11 U.S.C. 502(b), although the bankruptcy court did not adequately determine the amount of Chase’s allowed claim, its error was harmless; the bankruptcy court did not abuse the discretion afforded it by Rule 3012 in declining the Committee’s request to undertake a “more precise determination of value;” and the bankruptcy court did not err in denying the Motion to Value simultaneously with its approval of the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s consolidated judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders approving the Settlement Agreement, denying the Claim Objection, and denying the Motion to Value. View "Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Chase Capital Corp." on Justia Law

LifeCare operated 27 long-term acute care hospitals with about 4,500 employees.Hurricane Katrina destroyed three of its facilities. It had $484 million debt; approximately $355 million was secured. Secured lenders wanted to purchase the company outright and offered to credit $320 million of the debt as LifeCare’s only alternative to liquidation under Chapter 7. The secured lender group, LLC2, put funds in escrow to pay legal and accounting fees. LifeCare filed for bankruptcy one day later, obtained permission to sell assets under 11 U.S.C. 363(b)(1), abd marketed its assets to more than 106 potential parties. LLC2 was selected as the successful bidder. The Committee of Unsecured Creditors and U.S. government—neither of which would recover anything through the sale— objected to the transfer as a “veiled foreclosure.” In exchange for the Committee dropping its objections, LLC2 deposited $3.5 million in trust for general unsecured creditors. The Bankruptcy Court approved the sale. Deeming the administrative fee monies escrowed by LLC2 not to be estate property, the court held that the government had no claim to it. The Third Circuit affirmed. Payments by an 11 U.S.C. 363 purchaser (LLC2) need not be distributed according to the Code’s creditor-payment hierarchy where no cash changed hands other than that deposited in escrow for professional fees and paid directly to the unsecured creditors. The payments neither went into nor came out of the bankruptcy estate. View "In re: ICL Holding Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Sahagun filed a class action suit against Landmark, alleging that Landmark had failed to pay a variety of wages required by California law. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling that Sahagun was entitled to the prevailing wage for time spent fabricating components for public works contracts. The district court held, however, that the bankruptcy court applied an incorrect legal standard for assessing whether Landmark was required to pay prevailing wages for the time class members spent traveling to and from public worksites. The district court thus remanded for “additional fact finding.” Both parties appealed. The court weighed four factors to assess jurisdiction, concluding that the risk of piecemeal litigation in this instance is significant; judicial efficiency would not be enhanced by exercising jurisidiction; systemic interest in preserving the bankruptcy court's role as the finder of fact tips in favor of declining jurisdiction; and delaying review would not cause irreparable harm to either party. The court held that the district court's order was not a final order and, therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Sahagun v. Landmark Fence Co." on Justia Law

Washington orchardists Harold and Shirley Ostenson (collectively Ostenson) and California organic fruit broker Greg Holzman (d/b/a Greg Holzman, Inc. (GHI)) formed Pac Organic Fruit LLC (Pac-O) in 1998. The business operated from 1998 through 2004 but collapsed in 2005. During 2005, Pac-O defaulted on its operating line of credit and lease payments, Holzman fired Ostenson, and the bank foreclosed on the packing facility. Thereafter, Holzman, acting as Pac-O's agent, executed a demand promissory note in favor of GHI and transferred Pac-O' s assets to GHI to satisfy the note. In early 2007, Ostenson filed a voluntary chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Later that year, a creditor of Pac-O, Northwest Wholesale Inc., filed this action against Pac-O, Ostenson, and GHI, alleging a fraudulent conveyance from Pac-O to GHI. Ostenson filed cross claims and/or third party claims against Pac-O, Holzman, GHI, and Total Organic LLC (another Holzman company). Ostenson claimed Holzman and his companies (collectively Holzman defendants or HDs) were as a derivative action on behalf of Pac-O. The trial court dismissed Northwest Wholesale's claims following a settlement. Thereafter, the only remaining claims were Ostenson's responsive claims against Pac-O (seven counts) and his derivative claim (count VIII) against HDs. The trial court: (1) rejected Ostenson's contention that HDs had waived a CR 41 motion by putting on evidence; (2) rejected Ostenson's contention that HDs had consented to the derivative action in the stipulation in Ostenson's bankruptcy proceeding; and (3) ruled that Ostenson relinquished membership in Pac-O with his bankruptcy filing. Ostenson moved for reconsideration, arguing for the first time that federal bankruptcy law preempted the Washington Limited Liability Company Act (WALLCA, chapter 25.15 RCW) regarding dissociation of LLC members upon filing bankruptcy. The trial court denied Ostenson's motion. Ostenson appealed, and Division Three affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the dissociation provision found in RCW 25.15. 13 0(1)(d) was not preempted by federal bankruptcy law and affirmed the dismissal of the former LLC member's derivative claim under the facts of this case. View "Nw. Wholesale, Inc. v. Pac Organic Fruit, LLC" on Justia Law

Investors in Central Sleep filed suit against the company, Dachman, its promoter, and others, claiming fraud, RICO violations, conversion, fraudulent conveyance, civil conspiracy, and securities fraud. Dachman was also convicted for his fraudulent conduct. He spent the funds he stole from investors on a tattoo parlor, vacations and cruises, a new Land Rover, rare booksm and to fund personal stock trading and gambling. Goodman represented the defendants. A judge ordered Central Sleep into receivership and issued a stay against “all civil legal proceedings” involving the defendants. The receivership closed; victims received pennies on the dollar. Goodman obtained a judgment for unpaid legal fees and submitted a claim, but also filed a lien against the proceeds of the Dachmans' state court medical-malpractice lawsuit. Neither Goodman nor the Dachmans informed the receiver or the judge of those proceedings. The receiver learned of the malpractice suit and recovered the settlement proceeds. When the receiver proposed a distribution plan, Goodman argued that his lien entitled him to be paid in full from the malpractice suit proceeds, rather than pro rata from the receivership estate like other creditors. The judge offered Goodman the opportunity to post a bond to delay distribution, pending appeal. Goodman did not post a bond. The judge approved the plan and the funds were distributed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed and granted the receiver’s motion for sanctions against Goodman. View "Duff v. Central Sleep Diagnostics, LLC" on Justia Law