Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

In 2006 plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, but later voluntarily dismissed the petition. A credit-reporting agency received a copies from Lexis and reported the petition “dismissed.” In 2009 the plaintiff’s lawyer demanded that the agency remove all reference to her bankruptcy because it had been dismissed at her behest. The agency refused. In 2012 she told the agency: “my bankruptcy was not dismissed. It was voluntarily withdrawn prior to plan approval.” The agency then purged the reference to the bankruptcy from her file, but did so because it was seven years since she had filed the petition. Plaintiff alleged that by failing to report in 2006 that the petition had been voluntarily withdrawn, the agency had willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and sought damages, 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a). The district court granted the credit agency summary judgment in without deciding whether to certify a class. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. An agency must report that a bankruptcy petition was withdrawn “upon receipt of documentation certifying such withdrawal” and must “follow reasonable procedures to as-sure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the” person who had filed for bankruptcy. In 2006, when the plaintiff’s petition was withdrawn, no documentation certifying such withdrawal was submitted to the agency. View "Childress v. Experian Information Solutions" on Justia Law

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission concluded that Battoo committed fraud. Battoo and his companies, all located outside the United States, defaulted in the suits. The district judge froze all assets pending a final decision about ownership. The court appointed a Receiver to marshal the remaining assets and try to determine ownership. The Receiver has been recognized as the assets’ legitimate controller in several other nations, including China (Hong Kong), Guernsey, and the Bahamas. Battoo defied the injunction and transferred control of some investment vehicles, located in the British Virgin Islands, to court-appointed Liquidators, who asked the judge to modify the injunction and allow them to distribute assets located in the U.S. or England immediately. The Liquidators maintain that, because Battoo no longer has control, the justification for freezing the assets has lapsed. The court assumed that the Liquidators are now under judicial control, but declined to modify the injunction, ruling that the funds should remain available so that an eventual master plan of distribution can treat all investors equitably. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It is not clear whether some investment interests can be disentangled reliably from those affected by Battoo’s frauds against U.S. investors; the Liquidators have not argued that any investor is suffering loss as a result of the Receiver’s investment decisions. View "Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Battoo" on Justia Law

Debtor filed for bankruptcy in 2011 and claimed numerous exemptions. At issue are debtor's requests for exemption for: (1) an annuity worth well over $150,000; and (2) the nearly $15,000 cash surrender value of a whole life insurance policy. The court affirmed the denial of both exemptions, concluding that Georgia Code 44-13-100(a)(9) does not violate equal protection where it is rationally related to the purpose of bankruptcy legislation and where Section 44-13-100(a)(9) does not violate the Bankruptcy Clause. A plain reading of 11 U.S.C. 522 does not, as debtor alleges, allow a bankruptcy debtor to use a state exemption statute where the state itself has rendered the statute inapplicable. Rather, very near the opposite is true; states have been authorized to define and restrict the applicability of their bankruptcy exemptions. View "McFarland v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Lariat and Tenant entered into a 10-year lease for operation of a restaurant. Debtor personally guaranteed Tenant's performance. Tenant was evicted in 2010 and obtained a judgment of $2,224,237.00, plus interest and attorney fees. In 2011, Lariat filed an involuntary chapter 7 petition against Debtor, which was dismissed by agreement. The same creditors filed suit against Debtor's wife. After the involuntary petition was dismissed, they added Debtor as a codefendant. The court held Debtor and his wife liable for fraudulent transfers ($795,098.00) and awarded interest and costs. In 2013, Debtor sued Lariat; the court dismissed, based on collateral estoppel. Appeal is pending. In 2014 Tenant filed a chapter 11 petition and an adversary proceeding against Lariat. The bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding. On the Trustee's motion, Tenant’s chapter 11 case was dismissed. Debtor filed his own chapter 11 petition. Lariat filed a proof of claim for $1,734,539.00. Debtor objected on grounds that the amount sought based on Debtor's personal guaranty under the lease exceeded the amount allowable under 11 U.S.C. 502(b)(6) and the amount sought based on fraudulent transfers was duplicative of, and subject to the same limitation as, sought based on thatl guaranty. Lariat filed an amended proof of claim for $1,610,787.00. The court capped Lariat's claim at $445,272.93. The Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel remanded for recalculation of damages under the lease and of fees and expenses, but agreed that damages for fraudulent transfers were duplicative. View "Lariat Co., Inc. v. Wigley" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Code provides preferential treatment to domestic support obligations. Young filed for bankruptcy shortly after he and his wife, Stephens, divorced. The divorce decree required Young to pay alimony. Young did not pay. Stephens filed contempt proceedings in state court and Young was jailed. Young responded by filing an adversary proceeding against Stephens in the bankruptcy court, alleging a violation of the stay. In the bankruptcy, including the adversary proceeding, attorney Cruz represented Young. She repeatedly mischaracterized past-due post-petition alimony obligations as past-due prepetition obligations and falsely asserted Young was current on his alimony payments, representing that Young would "continue" to make alimony payments. In reliance on these representations, the bankruptcy court confirmed a plan. After discovering Cruz's false statements, the court entered a show-cause order and concluded that Cruz had no basis in law or fact for her assertions. Citing Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011, the court imposed, and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and Eighth Circuit affirmed, sanctions; suspending Cruz from practice in the Arkansas bankruptcy courts for six months, fining her $1,000, and directing her to attend CLE. Rule 9011 required Cruz to "make a reasonable inquiry into whether . . . a factual and legal basis" supported her assertions. View "In re: Cruz" on Justia Law

This dispute stemmed from a house that Debra Stevenson and her son Eugene Smith both own. After Stevenson refinanced her mortgage twice and then filed for bankruptcy, HSBC filed suit in Bankruptcy Court seeking equitable subrogation, which permits courts to declare that the owner of a mortgage (HSBC) has the same rights as an earlier-in-time owner of another mortgage (Wells Fargo). Only Stevenson signed the paperwork for the second refinancing with HSBC and Smith refused to sign because he thought the interest rate was too high. HSBC went ahead with the mortgage in full without Smith's signature. The court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's conclusion that HSBC is entitled to equitable subrogation and rejected Stevenson and Smith’s claims that the mortgage is invalid under D.C. and federal lending laws. The court affirmed the judgment. View "In Re: Debra M. Stevenson" on Justia Law

Debtor filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court appointed a Trustee and confirmed Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan, which contained a tax return production requirement. When the Trustee received neither a copy of Debtor’s tax return under the tax return production requirement nor a request for an extension, the Trustee filed a motion alerting the bankruptcy court to Debtor’s failure to comply with the tax return production requirement. When Debtor belatedly furnished Trustee with a copy the extension request, the bankruptcy court imposed a $100 sanction on Debtor. The district court upheld the sanction. the First Circuit rejected Debtor’s challenge to the sanction, holding that the district court did not err in upholding it. View "Charbono v. Sumski" on Justia Law

ASARCO hired the law firms to assist it in carrying out its duties as a Chapter 11 debtor in possession, 11 U.S.C. 327(a). When ASARCO emerged from bankruptcy, the law firms filed fee applications requesting fees under section 330(a)(1), which permits bankruptcy courts to “award . . . reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services rendered by” professionals. The Bankruptcy Court rejected ASARCO’s objections and awarded fees for time spent defending the applications. The district court held that the firms could be awarded fees for defending their fee applications. The Fifth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed. Section330(a)(1) does not permit bankruptcy courts to award fees to section 327(a) professionals for defending fee applications. The American Rule provides the basic point of reference for attorney’s fees: Each litigant pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise. Congress did not depart from the American Rule in section 330(a)(1) for fee-defense litigation. The phrase “reasonable compensation for services rendered” necessarily implies “loyal and disinterested service in the interest of” a client, Time spent litigating a fee application against the bankruptcy estate’s administrator cannot be fairly described as “labor performed for”—let alone “disinterested service to”—that administrator. Requiring bankruptcy attorneys to bear the costs of their fee-defense litigation under section 330(a)(1) creates no disincentive to bankruptcy practice. View "Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC" on Justia Law

The chapter 7 trustee paid the 2005 federal income taxes of a bankruptcy estate without first providing notice to a creditor of the estate, requesting a hearing to determine the appropriate amount of those taxes, or obtaining an order of the bankruptcy court authorizing the payment of those taxes. At issue was whether section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 503(b), requires a chapter 7 trustee to provide notice to creditors, and obtain a hearing, before paying taxes incurred by the estate. The court held that the plain language of section 503 requires that notice and a hearing be provided before the payment of taxes as administrative expenses, and that this requirement does not impose inconsistent obligations on trustees under other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code or the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, the court remanded with directions for the bankruptcy court to determine the amount of 2005 federal income taxes due from the estate and to conduct other appropriate proceedings. View "Dreyfuss v. Cory" on Justia Law

Appellants William Karl Jenkins and M. Earlene Jenkins (collectively, Mr. Jenkins) appealed an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) that affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of their claim for the payment of certain secured promissory notes. Alternate Fuels, Inc. (AFI) was a Kansas corporation that formerly engaged in surface coal mining operations. On December 9, 1992, AFI filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the District of Kansas. AFI briefly continued its coal mining operations under the terms of a confirmed plan of reorganization. At that time, John Warmack acquired 100% of the stock of AFI and assumed control. Mr. Warmack then formed Cimarron Energy Co., LLC to handle the mining operations for which AFI still held permits. Mr. Warmack owned 99% of Cimarron. Twenty-four certificates of deposit, valued at approximately $1.4 million, were pledged to secure multiple reclamation bonds. Then, Cimarron recommenced mining operations. AFI’s equipment was released to AFI’s secured creditors, who ultimately foreclosed and sold the equipment back to Cimarron. Mr. Jenkins entered into an agreement to purchase Mr. Warmack’s interest in AFI. Mr. Jenkins did not intend to resume mining operations or otherwise operate AFI. Instead, Mr. Jenkins believed that, through his political connections, he could fulfill AFI’s remaining reclamation obligations and obtain the proceeds of the release of the 24 certificates of deposit and the sale of Cimarron’s mining equipment. Mr. Jenkins testified that he knew AFI had no prospect of repaying two promissory noted from its own funds; his only prospects for future payment were the certificates of deposit. The bankruptcy court found that Mr. Jenkins’ claims were not allowed claims because the transfers alleged to be consideration for the notes should have been recharacterized as equity contributions. In the alternative, the court found that Mr. Jenkins failed to sustain his burden of proof as to the validity and amount of his claim, or that Mr. Jenkins putatively secured claim should have been subordinated to the status of an unsecured claim. The Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that Mr. Jenkins' transfers did not meet the criteria for either recharacterization or equitable subordination, and he satisfied his burden of proof as to the validity and amount of his claim. View "Redmond v. Jenkins" on Justia Law