Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

These appeals concerned a suit filed under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., and two bankruptcy proceedings. The district court concluded that the bankruptcy trustee had exclusive standing to assert the FCA claims at issue because those claims belonged to the bankruptcy estate. The court agreed with the district court that only the trustee had standing to prosecute the FCA lawsuit; affirmed the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6); and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. View "Westbrook Navigator L.L.C., et al v. Navistar, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Pontiac has experienced significant economic difficulties. In 2011 Michigan’s Governor appointed Schimmel as Pontiac’s emergency manager under then-existing law (Public Act 4), in 2011, Schimmel modified the collective bargaining agreements of retired city employees and severance benefits, including pension benefits, for retirees not covered by collective bargaining agreements. Retired employees sued under the Contracts Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Bankruptcy Clause. The district court denied an injunction. In 2013, the Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for expedited consideration of state law issues. Michigan voters later rejected Public Act 4 by referendum. Following rehearing, en banc, the Sixth Circuit again vacated and remanded for consideration of whether, under section 903(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, Public Act 4 prescribed a method of composition of indebtedness that binds the retirees without their consent and, if so, whether principles of state sovereignty preclude application of section 903(1) in this case; whether the emergency manager’s orders were legislative acts under the Contract Clause; whether the reductions and eliminations of health care benefits were “necessary and reasonable” under the Contract Clause; whether the retirees’ procedural due process claim is viable; and, assuming the Due Process Clause’s procedural protections apply, whether the collective bargaining agreements, considered in their entireties, establish protected property rights.View "City of Pontiac Retired Emps. Ass'n v. Schimmel" on Justia Law

Mark Fisher and Reece Boudreaux were limited partners of Nighthawk Oilfield Services, Ltd. (“Nighthawk”), which acquired Richey Oilfield Construction, Inc. (“Richey Oil”) from Mike Richey. The business did not go well, and Nighthawk and Richey Oil filed for bankruptcy. Richey sued Fisher and Boudreaux in Wise County where Richey resided, alleging claims for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, statutory fraud and violations of the Texas Security Act. Fisher and Boudreaux responded by moving to transfer venue to Tarrant County or dismiss the suit pursuant to the mandatory venue selection clauses in the acquisition documents. The trial court denied the motions. Fisher and Boudreaux sought mandamus relief from the court of appeals, which denied relief. The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to enforce the venue selection clauses in the acquisition documents.View "In re Fisher" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs refinanced their home in a mortgage loan transaction with Summit Mortgage. The mortgage was later assigned to Defendant, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. Facing foreclosure, Plaintiffs filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Plaintiffs filed an adversary proceeding against SunTrust in the pending bankruptcy case, seeking rescission of the loan transaction and damages. SunTrust filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that because Plaintiffs filed their adversary complaint more than four years after the mortgage loan transaction, the defensive rescission-by-way-of-recoupment claim was barred by section 10(f) of the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act (“MCCCDA”). In response, Plaintiffs asserted that the four-year statute of limitations did apply to their action because section 10(i)(3) of the MCCCDA allows for recoupment claims at any time. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts certified a question of law to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which answered by holding that a borrower who grants a mortgage in a consumer credit transaction may not rescind the transaction under the MCCCDA defensively by way of common law recoupment after the expiration of the statute of limitations set forth in section 10(f) of the MCCCDA.View "May v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

Tommy Sundy petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to dismiss third-party claims asserted against him by accounting firm Frost Cummings Tidwell Group, LLC ("FCT"). Adams Produce Company, Inc. ("APCI"), purchased Crestview Produce of Destin, Inc., from Sundy. As part of the transaction, APCI and Sundy executed a promissory note in the amount of $850,000, and Sundy became an employee of APCI. FCT alleges that, based on representations from APCI and Sundy, certain budget and bonus projections were set for APCI, but those goals were not met. Because of that failure, Sundy was not entitled to bonuses that had been paid to him throughout 2009. With the alleged help and direction of FCT, APCI recharacterized the bonuses as repayments of principal on the promissory note. The nonpayment of certain amounts to Sundy in the context of this action effectively increased APCI's income and decreased its indebtedness. APCI also allegedly entered into an oral, undocumented agreement with Sundy stipulating that it would make him whole in future years for the forfeited bonus payments. In 2009, APCI's shareholders decided to sell the company to API Holdings, LLC. API Holdings alleges that it discovered that, contrary to representations made by FCT in an audit report, APCI's financial statements were fraudulent, causing API Holdings to believe that APC was worth more than it actually was. API Holdings sued FCT asserting claims of negligent misrepresentation, auditing malpractice, fraud, and other claims of professional malfeasance. Among several other claims, API Holdings alleged that FCT had failed to uncover misrepresentations by Sundy and APCI and that FCT had acted fraudulently in confirming the recharacterization of Sundy's bonuses as payments on principal of the promissory note. A few months later, APC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. APC filed an adversarial complaint in FCT's bankruptcy case, alleging that FCT's audit work had painted a false financial picture of APC upon which APC had relied in continuing to operate its business even after reaching the point of insolvency. FCT filed a third-party complaint with the bankruptcy court against Sundy and others. FCT's complaint alleged various theories under Alabama law as bases for FCT to "recover over" against Sundy. Sundy subsequently moved to dismiss FCT's third-party complaint on the basis of 6-5-440, Ala. Code 1975, Alabama's abatement statute. The circuit court denied the motion, and Sundy then filed his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have the Supreme Court direct the circuit court to vacate its judgment denying his motion to dismiss and to order the circuit court to dismiss FCT's claims against Sundy asserted in its third-party complaint at circuit court. The Supreme Court concluded that FCT's third-party claims against Sundy were not barred by the abatement statute. The circuit court properly declined to dismiss those claims. Therefore, the Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. View "In re: API Holdings, LLC v. Frost Cummings Tidwell Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Richardson, apparently a lawyer who has been suspended several times, incurred educational debt in 1988 but did not pay. Indiana University, the creditor, sued in 1998. Richardson filed a bankruptcy petition days before trial but did not tell the court, the University, or its counsel. Nor did he appear for trial. The state judge entered a default judgment, which the law firm tried unsuccessfully to collect. After learning about the bankruptcy, the law firm stopped collection efforts. The bankruptcy ended in 2001, and the firm resumed collection efforts, relying on 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8), which makes most educational debts nondischargeable. Richardson filed a second bankruptcy in 2002 that lasted until 2007. Again the law firm ceased its efforts until after its end. The post-2007 efforts resulted in Richardson’s claim that the law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692f, by trying to enforce a judgment that had been entered in violation of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay. The district court treated the suit as a collateral attack on the state court’s judgment and dismissed for want of jurisdiction, invoking the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Seventh Circuit held that the dismissal should be on the merits, noting that the state court judgment was vacated at the request of Indiana University.View "Richardson v. Koch Law Firm, P.C." on Justia Law

This appeal concerns the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS). The liquidator appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order declining to conduct a section 363 review of a sale of the claims of Sentry in a Chapter 15 ancillary bankruptcy proceeding under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA), 11 U.S.C. 1520. Sentry is a British Virgin Islands investment fund. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the SIPA sale is subject to review under section 363 and comity is not warranted where the SIPA sale claim is a transfer of an interest of the debtor in property that is within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. View "Krys v. Farnum Place, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1999 ATN fraudulently transferred $6 million to its former owners, including Allen, in a shareholder litigation settlement. ATN avoided the transfer and obtained a recovery order in its separate Florida bankruptcy proceedings. Allen transferred the money to a Cook Islands asset protection trust, filed for bankruptcy in New Jersey, and argued that the funds were never recovered and were property of his estate subject to an automatic stay. After a remand, the Florida Bankruptcy Court avoided the transfers to Allen; entered a $6 million judgment in favor of ATN on its fraudulent transfer claims; and ordered Allen to repatriate the money, provide an accounting, and freeze any other use or transfer of the money. Allen did not comply. ATN filed an adversary proceeding in Allen’s bankruptcy. The New Jersey Bankruptcy Court denied relief, finding that, because ATN had not recovered tangible possession of the funds, they were not property of ATN’s bankruptcy estate, but property of Allen’s estate and subject to the automatic stay and were not held by Allen in constructive trust for ATN. The district court affirmed. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that where a debtor avoids a fraudulent transfer and obtains a recovery order (11 U.S.C. 550) it has sufficiently “recovered” those funds such that they are part of that debtor’s estate. View "In re: Allen" on Justia Law

The case involves statements made by plaintiff Vehicle Market Research, Inc. (VMR) in a breach of contract case that were allegedly inconsistent with earlier statements by its sole owner, John Tagliapietra. VMR developed and owned certain intellectual property, including a software system to calculate the value of a total loss of an automobile for the purposes of the automobile insurance industry and certain “pre-existing software tools, utilities, concepts, techniques, text, research or development” used in the development of the software. When Mr. Tagliapietra filed for personal bankruptcy, he asserted that his shares in VMR were worth nothing. A few years later, as the bankruptcy was winding down, VMR sued Mitchell International, Inc., a company which held an exclusive license to VMR's technology. That case sought $4.5 million in damages for the alleged misappropriation of that technology. The question this case presented to the Tenth Circuit was whether the statements by VMR and Mr. Tagliapietra in the litigation against Mitchell were so clearly contrary to the statements made by Mr. Tagliapietra in his bankruptcy proceeding that VMR should have been judicially estopped from proceeding with its suit against Mitchell. After review, the Court concluded that neither VMR’s litigation claim for payments nor Mr. Tagliapietra’s deposition testimony in that lawsuit was clearly inconsistent with his valuation of 0.00 for his VMR stock at the time of his bankruptcy petition in 2005, the date when the initial bankruptcy representations were made. "If there were grounds for judicial estoppel, it would have to be based on a duty by Mr. Tagliapietra to amend his bankruptcy pleadings to report a possible increased value for his VMR stock at least as of the time that VMR filed its suit against Mitchell in 2009. However, our precedent is not clear on whether a debtor has a continuing duty to amend his bankruptcy schedules when the estate’s assets change in value. Given our reluctance to invoke judicial estoppel, and keeping in mind that judicial estoppel is an affirmative defense that its proponent must prove, we conclude that in this case Mitchell has not met its burden of showing any clearly inconsistent statements that would warrant that relief." View "Vehicle Market Research v. Mitchell International" on Justia Law

Debtors, William M. "Trip" Hawkins - the cofounder of EA and his wife, filed a declaratory action against the IRS and the FTB seeking a determination that their unpaid taxes were covered by the bankruptcy plan discharge. The IRS and FTB counterclaimed, alleging that the tax debts were excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(1)(c). The district court and the bankruptcy court held that specific intent to evade taxes was not required in order to except a tax debt from discharge under section 523(a)(1)(C) and the courts relied in large part on debtors' spending beyond their income as the basis for denying tax debt discharge. The court held that the denial of discharge for willfully attempting, in any manner to evade or defeat a tax debt requires that the acts be taken with the specific intent to evade the tax. In this case, neither the district court nor the bankruptcy court had the benefit of the court's holding and therefore, the court vacated and remanded for the courts to reanalyze the case using a specific intent standard. View "Hawkins v. FTB" on Justia Law