Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

The Debtors sought Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief. On their schedules, they listed the IRS as an unsecured creditor holding a claim in the amount of $249,085. They received a discharge in October 2009. Following the close of their Chapter 7 case, several IRS employees issued IRS levies and filed Notices of Federal Tax Liens with respect to the Debtors’ federal tax debt. The Debtors filed an adversary proceeding, naming each IRS employee as a defendant, alleging that the IRS employees violated 26 U.S.C. 7433 by issuing levies and filing the Notices of Federal Tax Liens, and seeking actual and punitive damages. The Bankruptcy Court entered an order substituting the United States as the sole defendant, denying the Debtors’ request for default judgment, and dismissing the Debtors’ complaint. The Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. The Debtors did not file an administrative claim for damages with the IRS and, therefore, may not bring an action for damages under section 7433. If the Debtors wish to sue the government for violations of the bankruptcy discharge under 11 U.S.C. 524, they must first exhaust their administrative remedies. View "Broos v. United States" on Justia Law

The Creditors filed suit to recover losses incurred when subsidiaries of Hellas defaulted on notes valued at 1.3 billion euros. On appeal, the Creditors challenged the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court dismissing the Chapter 7 involuntary bankruptcy petitions filed by the Creditors against the Troy Entities; denying the Creditors’ motion to withdraw the reference to bankruptcy court; and affirming the July 18, 2013 opinion by the same bankruptcy court awarding the Troy Entities $513,427.16 in attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 15 303(i)(1). Determining that the court had jurisdiction, the court concluded that the Creditors knowingly and voluntarily consented to the bankruptcy court exercising its jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees and costs; the court rejected the Creditors' arguments challenging the bankruptcy court's conclusion that there is a bona fide dispute requiring dismissal of the involuntary petitions solely for the purpose of deciding whether there was a basis for the award of attorneys’ fees and costs; and the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees here. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Crest One SpA v. TPG Troy" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case alleged their former bankruptcy trustee breached professional duties due them because of conflicting obligations the trustee owed the bankruptcy estate. Plaintiffs sought recovery under state law. However, plaintiffs filed suit in federal court against the trustee alleging diversity jurisdiction and the right to have the case resolved in an Article III court. The trustee maintained the case should have been heard in an Article I bankruptcy court because the alleged-breached professional duties arose from the bankruptcy proceedings. The district court concluded the case should have been heard in the Article I court, and certified its decision for immediate appeal. The Tenth Circuit concluded that an Article III court had jurisdiction, and reversed the district court's order. View "Loveridge v. Hall" on Justia Law

Riverbend filed a Proof of Claim in the bankruptcy proceeding of debtor, owner of a condominium in Riverbend. Debtor filed a Motion to Avoid Riverbend's Lien on the grounds that after deducting the balance of the first mortgage and the Louisiana homestead exemption, there was only $8,000 left to which Riverbend's lien could attach. The bankruptcy court held that the privilege created by La. Rev. Stat. 9:1123.115(1) on a Louisiana condominium for all unpaid sums assessed by the condominium association against the condominium owner is a statutory lien (as distinguished from a security interest) and is therefore subject to bifurcation under 11 U.S.C. 1322(b)(2). Riverbend appealed the bankruptcy court's decision. The court affirmed the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order. View "Riverbend Condo. Ass'n v. Green" on Justia Law

ASARCO appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for CNA in ASARCO's suit for contribution under section 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9613(f)(3)(B). The district court dismissed the complaint. The court held that a judicially approved settlement agreement between private parties to a CERCLA cost-recovery suit starts the clock on the three-year statute of limitations in section 113(g)(3)(B), and that a later bankruptcy settlement that fixes the costs of such a cost recovery settlement agreement does not revive a contribution claim that has otherwise expired. The court's holding that a later bankruptcy settlement with the government cannot revive an otherwise expired contribution claim ensures that a party does not receive a benefit that it had not paid for in the bankruptcy settlement. In this case, the court concluded that ASARCO's time to file contribution claims pursuant to the Wickland Agreement has expired, and that the Wickland Agreement covered all response costs at the Selby Site and the 2008 bankruptcy settlement merely fixed costs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "ASARCO v. Celanese Chem. Co." on Justia Law

Debtors filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. CP Medical’s collection agent timely filed a proof of claim. The Chapter 13 plan, proposing monthly payments of $124.00 over 36 months and pro rata distribution to unsecured creditors, was confirmed. Debtors fell behind on payments and converted to a Chapter 7. After confirmation, but during the Chapter 13 case, Debtors filed an adversary proceeding against CP, seeking damages For violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692. The complaint indicated that CP's proof of claim was for medical services provided in February 2011, that the bankruptcy and proof of claim filings were beyond Arkansas’ two-year statute of limitations for medical debt collection, and that by filing a claim on a debt that is time-barred, CP engaged in a “false, deceptive, misleading, unfair and unconscionable” debt collection practice. The bankruptcy court granted CP summary judgment, holding that no FDCPA violation occurs when a debt collector attempts to collect a potentially time-barred debt that is otherwise valid unless there is actual litigation or the threat of litigation. The Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate panel affirmed. CP's proof of claim was a simple attempt to share in any distribution made to listed creditors in bankruptcy, not actual or threatened litigation. View "Gatewood v. CP Medical, LLC" on Justia Law

Utica’s subsidiary, Republic, hired Sheppard’s law firm to pursue a subrogation action. Settlement proceeds totaling $145,000.00 were entrusted to the law firm; Sheppard was the managing partner. Republic was entitled to $130,740.03; that award was not distributed. Republic retained the Lewis, law firm to recover the money. The parties reached a settlement agreement; $60,000.00, was due in November 2013 and $70,740.03, was to be paid in December 2013. Payments were to be made to the Utica Atlanta regional office, which had originally worked with Sheppard and handles claims relating to member companies, including Republic. Sheppard’s portion, $30,000.00, was not received. In February 2014, Sheppard filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy. UTICA is listed as a creditor,with the address of its New York home office. The Bankruptcy Court mailed notice to all creditors of the May 30, 2014 date by which creditors had to file a complaint or challenge the dischargeability of certain debts. No notice was sent to Lewis or Republic. On May 21, 2014 Lewis sued Sheppard in Tennessee State Court, unaware of the pending bankruptcy. Lewis received notice of the bankruptcy on May 28, and, on May 29, filed a timely motion to extend the deadline. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed denial of the motion, finding sufficient “cause” to justify extension under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004 and 4007(c). View "In re: Sheppard" on Justia Law

Puerto Rico may not authorize its municipalities, including public utilities, to seek federal bankruptcy relief under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In 2014, the Commonwealth attempted to allow its utilities, which were at risk of becoming insolvent, to restructure their debt by enacting its own municipal bankruptcy law, the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act (Recovery Act). Plaintiffs, investors who collectively held nearly two billion dollars of bonds issued by one of the distressed utilities, brought suit to challenge the Recovery Act’s validity and to enjoin its implementation. The district court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and permanently enjoined the Recovery Act on the ground that it was preempted under 11 U.S.C. 903(1), which ensures the uniformity of federal bankruptcy laws by prohibiting state municipal debt restructuring laws that bind creditors without their consent. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that section 903(1) preempts the Recovery Act, as the statute does not read that Puerto Rico is outside the reach of its prohibitions and the Recovery Act would frustrate the precise purpose underlying the enactment of section 903(1). View "Franklin California Tax-Free v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

The debtors owned a house in Michigan; in 2007, it was foreclosed and sold at a sheriff’s sale. In 2008, they filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy, but did not disclose any interest in the house or any related cause of action. The redemption period for the house expired after the bankruptcy petition date. The case was converted to a chapter 7 proceeding. The debtors received a discharge. The bankruptcy case closed in February 2009. In March, the debtors filed suit in state court, alleging that the foreclosure was defective, but never sought to reopen their bankruptcy case to amend their schedules. Learning about the case, the trustee claimed that the cause of action was bankruptcy estate property. The bankruptcy court reopened in 2013. The debtors filed an amended schedule that disclosed the claim, stating a value of $3 million. Each debtor claimed a “wildcard” exemption of $5,300.00, 11 U.S.C. 522(d)(5). The bankruptcy court approved settlement of the case and denied the trustee’s objection to the exemptions. The district court affirmed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, citing the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision that a bankruptcy court may not use equitable powers to deny an exemption as a sanction for debtor misconduct, and noting that the trustee’s objection to timeliness was waived. View "Ellmann v. Baker" on Justia Law

Lender challenged the district court's denial of Lender's appeal from the bankruptcy court's order confirming a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization based on equitable mootness grounds. At issue was whether a lender that made colorable objections to a plan of reorganization in bankruptcy court and then diligently sought a stay in order to litigate those objections may obtain review of its objections on appeal even though the plan has been implemented. The court held that the lender’s objections are not equitably moot and should be considered on appeal because it would be possible to devise an equitable remedy to at least partially address the lender’s objections without unfairly impacting third parties or entirely unraveling the plan. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "JPMCC 2007-C1 Grasslawn Lodging v. Transwest Resort Properties" on Justia Law