Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order denying her discharge for failure to list a number of assets and prepetition transfers in her bankruptcy schedules pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(4)(A). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment, concluding that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that debtor's omissions were made with reckless indifference to the truth and therefore were intentionally false and fraudulent. In this case, debtor, a bookkeeper for several businesses and nonprofits, failed to truthfully answer specific questions necessary to complete a picture of her assets and liabilities. View "Home Service Oil Co. v. Cecil" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a personal injury suit against defendants for alleged workplace injuries to Helen Allen. Defendants argued that the suit should be barred by judicial estoppel because plaintiffs failed to disclose the personal injury claim during their concurrent Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding.The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that its precedent clearly establishes that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed plaintiffs’ claims based on judicial estoppel and provided a trustee with the opportunity to “pursue for the benefit of creditors a judgment or cause of action that the debtor fails to disclose in bankruptcy.” The court modified the district court’s judgment to clarify that the district court may reopen the present case and substitute a Chapter 7 trustee for plaintiffs if the trustee decides to pursue the claim within a reasonable period of time. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment as modified. View "Allen v. C & H Distributors, L.L.C.," on Justia Law

CEOC, the Chapter 11 debtor, owns and operates casinos. Caesars (CEC) is CEOC's principal owner. CEOC borrowed billions of dollars, issuing notes guaranteed by CEC. As CEOC’s financial position worsened, CEC tried to eliminate its guaranty obligations by selling assets of CEOC to other parties and terminating the guaranties. CEOC's creditors, who had received the guaranties, challenged CEC’s repudiation, seeking approximately $12 billion. CEOC, in its bankruptcy proceeding, asserted claims alleging that CEC caused CEOC to transfer valuable assets to CEC at less than fair value, leaving CEOC saddled with debt (fraudulent transfers) and that the guaranty suits will thwart CEOC’s multi‐billion‐dollar restructuring effort, which depends on a substantial contribution from CEC in settlement of CEOC’s claims, and will let the guaranty plaintiffs take precedence over other creditors. The bankruptcy judge, and a district judge refused CEOC's request to enjoin the guaranty suits until 60 days after a bankruptcy examiner completes his report. The bankruptcy judge’s exercise of jurisdiction over the other suits would have been constitutional, but he thought he lacked statutory authority to enter an injunction under 11 U.S.C. 105(a). The Seventh Circuit vacated, finding that the judges misinterpreted the statute and that issuance of a temporary injunction could facilitate a prompt wind‐up of the bankruptcy. View "Caesars Entm't Operating Co., Inc. v. BOKF, N.A." on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's decision finding that some, but not all, of her student loan obligations to NCT are nondischargeable. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in its fact findings for the time period analyzed. In this case, the time period the bankruptcy court used was the most recent time period for which it had complete income and expense figures. Finally, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying debtor's motion to make additional findings and amended the judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Conway v. National Collegiate Trust" on Justia Law

This case stems from claims arising out of a dispute over the limited assets that remain from a tilapia farm investment in Nicaragua. Nica, the debtor in the underlying bankruptcy, held stock in Nicanor, the Nicaraguan fish farm. Plaintiff and a Norwegian firm, Biotec, owned the remaining shares of Nicanor. Defendant was the assignee for Nica's Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (ABC). Defendant filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on Nica's behalf and plaintiff opposed the bankruptcy. Plaintiff's Adversary Proceeding against defendant was taken over by the Trustee and settled. Defendant removed plaintiff's state court action to Bankruptcy Court; the Trustee claimed the Adversary Proceeding as an asset of the estate and intervened as sole plaintiff; and the Trustee moved to settle it. In this appeal, the court rejected the equitable mootness argument because the court found that relief is still possible. However, the court concluded that absent explicit and plain authorization by the assignor, a Florida ABC assignee cannot initiate Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. In this case, Nica deliberately selected an ABC as its preferred mode of liquidation and executed an agreement manifesting that intent, consistent with Florida law. Defendant had no authority to terminate the ABC by purporting to send Nica into bankruptcy. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Ullrich v. Welt" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition filed by Jeffrey Lavenhar. Jeffrey’s ex-wife, Laurie Lavenhar, filed a proof of claim in Jeffrey’s bankruptcy proceeding for $347,400, claiming this amount was owed to her as a domestic support obligation, and it was entitled to priority under 11 U.S.C. 507(a)(1). First American Title Insurance Company, one of Jeffrey's creditors, filed an objection to Laurie’s proof of claim, asserting that the entirety of the domestic support obligation underlying Laurie’s proof of claim was obtained as a result of collusion between Jeffrey and Laurie in state-court divorce proceedings. First American also sought relief from the automatic stay so it could seek a state-court declaration that the judgment upon which Laurie’s claim was based was obtained by fraud on the court. In an order designed to prevent the state-court proceedings from intruding on the prerogatives of the Chapter 7 Trustee, the bankruptcy court granted First American’s motion to lift the stay. The district court affirmed that order on appeal. Laurie appealed, arguing the bankruptcy court erred in granting First American’s motion to lift the stay. According to Laurie, First American lacked standing to litigate the validity of any component of the state-court judgment because the power to control property of the bankruptcy estate belonged solely to the Trustee. After review, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error in the bankruptcy court's judgment, and affirmed the narrowly tailored order lifting the stay. View "Lavenhar v. First American Title Insurance" on Justia Law

This case arose out of an alleged power of attorney agreement between appellant and KSRP, which was signed by appellee, an officer and 50% owner of PYK, the general partner of KSRP. On appeal, appellant challenged the district court's order and judgment dismissing his claims against appellee, arguing that the bankruptcy court and district court lacked "related to" jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 because appellee's cross-claims for indemnity and contribution against KSRP had no possibility of succeeding. The court concluded that the pleadings are sufficient to support "related to" jurisdiction. In this case, appellee's allegations in his notice of removal and the facts alleged in appellant's pleadings in state court sufficiently show that appellee's contractual indemnity claim against KSRP was not immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or wholly insubstantial and frivolous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Collins v. Sidharthan" on Justia Law

Martin filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on January 28. On April 9, the Pecks sought relief from stay to continue state court litigation against Martin. On April 29, the Pecks filed an adversary proceeding seeking nondischargeability of a debt stemming from the same litigation. The court indicated that it would grant relief from stay, noting that the state court discovery process was further along; additional parties are involved in that case; and the Pecks had requested a jury trial. On July 7, the bankruptcy court granted relief from the stay, holding the adversary proceeding in abeyance. On July 17, Martin timely filed notice of appeal. On July 22, Martin sought a stay pending appeal in the bankruptcy court. The Pecks filed opposition. On October 5, Martin filed his appellate brief. The Pecks filed their brief on November 5. Martin filed his reply brief on November 23, requesting oral argument. On November 19, before obtaining a ruling from the bankruptcy court and before completion of briefing, Martin moved, in the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, for stay pending appeal. On November 30, the Pecks filed a response and the bankruptcy court denied a stay. On December 11, Martin filed an “Emergency” second motion for stay pending appeal. The Panel declined oral argument and affirmed relief from the automatic stay. View "In re: Daniel Martin, Sr." on Justia Law

This appeal concerns the proper application of Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code in the Lehman bankruptcies. LBI, the debtor, was lead underwriter of unsecured notes issued by Lehman Holdings, its affiliates. After the bankruptcy of both the Lehman entity that issued the notes, Lehman Holdings, and the Lehman entity that was lead underwriter on the issuances, LBI, the Junior Underwriters were held to account for the noteholders' losses, and incurred loss for defense and settlements. The Junior Underwriters filed suit asserting claims for contribution or reimbursement against the liquidation estate of Debtor LBI. The bankruptcy court construed the statute to require subordination of the Junior Underwriters’ contribution claims. The court, however, adopted the district court's construction of section 510(b), holding that in the affiliate securities context, “the claim or interest represented by such security” means a claim or interest of the same type as the affiliate security. Claims arising from securities of a debtor’s affiliate should be subordinated in the debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding to all claims or interests senior or equal to claims in the bankruptcy proceeding that are of the same type as the underlying securities. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "ANZ Securities v. Giddens" on Justia Law

Appellant FB Acquisition Property I, LLC appealed a district court order affirming the confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan for Appellees and Debtors Larry and Susan Gentry. The Gentrys were the sole shareholders, officers, and directors of Ball Four Inc., a sports complex in Adams County, Colorado. In 2010, Ball Four filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition, and a year later, the Gentrys filed this Chapter 11 proceeding. This appeal involved aspects of both bankruptcies. In 2005, Ball Four received a $1.9 million loan from FirsTier Bank to expand its sporting facilities and pay off a previous loan. After four years of struggling with construction defects, underfunding of the project, and an economic downturn, Ball Four stopped making interest payments to FirsTier. Ball Four proposed a plan of reorganization that provided the bank’s allowed claim would be repaid in full, plus interest, and that FirsTier would retain its lien on Ball Four’s property until the claim was paid. Before Ball Four’s Chapter 11 plan was approved in 2011, the Colorado Division of Banking closed FirsTier and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver. Later, the FDIC conveyed all rights under the original promissory note to 2011-SIP 1 CRE/CADC Venture, LLC (SIP). Neither FirsTier, FDIC, nor SIP objected to the Ball Four Plan, and it was confirmed in August 2011, and Ball Four’s case was closed in 2013. In October 2010, a month after Ball Four filed for bankruptcy, FirsTier sued the Gentrys in Colorado state court to collect on the guaranties. In November 2011, the Gentrys filed this Chapter 11 case. The Gentrys filed the necessary disclosures and an amended plan. The amended plan provided that the Gentrys’ liability on the 2005 loan would be satisfied by Ball Four under its confirmed plan. Despite SIP’s objections, the bankruptcy court confirmed the Gentry Plan in 2013. Because the bankruptcy court's feasibility finding of the Gentrys' plan was based on a permissible view of the evidence, the Tenth Circuit concluded the bankruptcy court’s finding of feasibility was not clearly erroneous. However, the Court found the district court erred with regard to limiting the Gentrys' liability as guarantors to the amount Ball Four owed. In light of the Tenth Circuit's ruling, the matter was remanded back to the bankruptcy court in the event the guaranty issue impacted the plan feasibility assessment. View "In re: Gentry" on Justia Law