Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

In May 2002, Respondent Eagle Windows & Doors, Inc.’s predecessor purchased Eagle & Taylor Company’s assets (Eagle I) from Eagle I's bankruptcy estate. In 2000, homeowners constructed a residence using defective windows manufactured by Eagle I. In 2006, homeowners settled their construction claims against the Appellant contractor. The contractor and its insurer (Appellants) then brought this contribution suit against Respondent as successor to Eagle I. The circuit court granted respondent's motion to dismiss, holding (1) dismissal was required under Rule 12(b)(6) because a bankruptcy order expressly precluded any state law successor liability actions since the sale was "free and clear" under 11 U.S.C. 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code; and (2) that dismissal was proper under Rule 12(b)(1) of the state rules of civil procedure because the bankruptcy court in Ohio which issued the Eagle I order retained jurisdiction over any claims against respondent for successor liability. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Appellants' claim did not arise under either the settlement agreement or the order, nor did their claim relate to Eagle I. Rather, it was predicated upon Respondent's post-sale conduct which, Appellants contended, exposed it to successor liability under South Carolina state law. The Supreme Court concluded the court erred in dismissing this suit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Nationwide Mutual v. Eagle Windows" on Justia Law

In this action, secured parties, as creditors in bankruptcy proceedings and appellees here, attempted in separate cases before the bankruptcy court to execute on four deeds of trust whose affidavits of considerations were missing or improper. Appellants, four trustees in bankruptcy, argued that those defects rendered the deeds of trust invalid such that the trustees possessed the properties free and clear of the creditor's interests. The creditors countered that Md. Code Ann. Real Prop. 4-109 cured the defects at issue. The Court of Appeals accepted certified questions regarding the statute and answered them in the affirmative, holding that Section 4-109 is unambiguous, and pursuant to the plain language of the statute and as confirmed by legislative history, cures the type of defects identified by the trustees, including missing or improper affidavits or acknowledgments, unless a timely judicial challenge is mounted. View "Guttman v. Wells Fargo Bank" on Justia Law

Appellee United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives, Inc. (USOBA) and Appellant Department of Banking challenged different aspects of the Commonwealth Court's decision that the Pennsylvania Debt Management Services Act (Act 117) was unconstitutional in part. At the request of the Supreme Court, the parties addressed whether the lower court's disposition was a final order appealable pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The General Assembly adopted Act 117 in October 2008 to regulate, in relevant part, providers of debt settlement services (“DSS”). A DSS provider negotiates with creditors on behalf of a consumer “for the purpose of the creditor forgiving part or all of the principal of the debt incurred or credit extended to that consumer.” Pursuant to Section 3(b) of Act 117, DSS providers are prohibited from operating in Pennsylvania without a license from the Banking Department, and are required to comply with the Department’s regulations. Other sections of Act 117 list licensing fees, describe the initial licensing, license renewal, revocation, and reinstatement processes, and create penalties for violations of the statute. USOBA claimed that Act 117 violates the non-delegation, equal protection, and due process provisions of the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions, and requested a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and compensation for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Department denied the allegations, and filed an Application for Summary Relief, claiming that the contentions in the complaint were insufficient as a matter of law to state a claim. Following a hearing, the Commonwealth Court denied the Department’s application in an unpublished opinion. Upon review of the Act, the applicable legal authority and the trial record, the Supreme Court concluded that the Commonwealth Court's order was not appealable and quashed the parties' appeals. View "United States Org. for Bankruptcy Alt. v. Dept. of Banking" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a sale-leaseback transaction that occurred in 2001. On July 10, 2011, the seller-lessees' parent company announced plans for a proposed transaction whereby it would seek a new credit facility and undergo an internal reorganization. As part of a subsequent reorganization, substantially all of its profitable power generating facilities would be transferred from existing subsidiaries to new "bankruptcy remote" subsidiaries, except for two financially weakened power plants. On July, 22, 2011, plaintiffs brought this action seeking to temporarily restrain the closing of the proposed transaction on the grounds that it violated the successor obligor provisions of the guaranties and would constitute a fraudulent transfer. The court found it more appropriate to analyze plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order under the heightened standard for a preliminary injunction. Having considered the record, the court held that plaintiffs have failed to show either a probability of success on the merits of their breach of contract and fraudulent transfer claims or the existence of imminent irreparable harm if the transaction was not enjoined. Therefore, the court denied plaintiffs' application for injunctive relief.View "Roseton Ol, LLC, et al. v. Dynegy Holdings Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Matthew Kundinger received a default judgment against Louis and Linda Frazer (the Frazers) before the Frazers closed a refinance mortgage with Matrix Financial Services Corporation (Matrix).  In Matrix's foreclosure action, the master-in-equity granted Matrix equitable subrogation, giving the refinance mortgage priority over Appellant's judgment lien. Appellant counterclaimed, alleging his judgment had priority over Matrix's mortgage because it had been recorded first.  Matrix, attempting to gain the primary priority position, then sought to have the refinance mortgage equitably subrogated to the rights of its January 2001 mortgage.  The master-in-equity granted Matrix's request, and Appellant appealed that order. Upon review of the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found that a lender that refinances its own debt is not entitled to equitable subrogation.  The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.View "Matrix Financial Services Corp. v. Frazer" on Justia Law

EB Investments, LLC and Pavilion Development, LLC filed separate appeals to challenge elements of a circuit court order holding that Pavilion was entitled to redeem certain property in Madison County in which EB Investments and other parties held legal interests. In 1997, Pavilion initiated an action to redeem 19 acres of land purchased at a foreclosure sale. In the years since, the Supreme Court has issued three opinions deciding various issues stemming from Pavilion's attempted redemption of that property. The property was subject to bankruptcy protection. In connection with a settlement agreement, three mortgages were executed on the property. Pavilion, as one of the mortgagees, sought to enforce its right of redemption to the property. In 2010, a trial court entered judgment outlining the steps Pavilion needed to take to perfect and complete its redemption. EB Investments and Pavilion took opposing sides on most legal issues in this case; however, they both argued that the trial court's judgment is not an appealable judgment because it does not address all the pending issues and resolve all the pending claims in this case. Other interested parties who filed responses in this case argued that the trial court's order was sufficient and urged the Supreme Court to end this long-running dispute. Upon review, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and offered guidance to the trial court to help expedite a resolution.View "EB Investments, L.L.C. v. Pavilion Development, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Debtor Maureen Roberson filed a petition under Chapter 13 of Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, alleging that Ford Motor Credit Company wrongfully repossessed her car in the wake of her prior Chapter 7 bankruptcy charge and seeking to recover damages from Ford. During the proceedings, Ford filed a motion for summary judgment. Before the court could rule on the motion, Roberson filed a motion seeking certification of the question of whether a secured creditor is permitted under Maryland law to repossess in a car in which it maintains a security interest when the debtor has filed a bankruptcy petition and has failed to reaffirm the indebtedness, but has otherwise made timely payments before, during, and after bankruptcy proceedings. The Bankruptcy Court granted the motion. The Supreme Court answered the certified question in the positive because the parties agreed that Ford elected Section 12-1023(b) of the Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions, Commercial Law Article, Maryland Code, to govern the retail installment contract in the present case.View "Ford Motor Credit Co., L.L.C. v. Roberson" on Justia Law

Walter and Sylvia Chang and the Walter Chang Trust instituted an action related to the foreclosure of property on which the Changs held a purchase money mortgage. The Chang named as defendants several parties, including Eadean Buffington, the Changs' attorney, and Investors Funding, a mortgagee of the property. After the circuit court action was removed to the bankruptcy court, Integrity Escrow and Title was added as a third party defendant. The bankruptcy court granted the Changs' petition for a determination that their settlement with Investors Funding was made in good faith. Buffington and Integrity appealed the order. The bankruptcy court subsequently remanded the action to the circuit court. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) dismissed Buffington and Integrity's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's dismissal order, holding the ICA erred in concluding that (1) it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because one of the parties was in bankruptcy; (2) it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the good faith settlement order was not in the record on appeal; and (3) the good faith settlement order entered by the bankruptcy court prior to remand was not properly appealable in the state court system. Remanded.View "Chang v. Buffington" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute between MBIA Insurance Corporation (MBIA) and certain of its policyholders who hold financial guarantee insurance policies. The principal question presented was whether the 2009 restructuring of MBIA and its related subsidiaries and affiliates authorized by the Superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department precluded these policyholders from asserting claims against MBIA under the Debtor and Creditor Law and the common law. The court held that the Superintendent's approval of such restructuring pursuant to its authority under the Insurance Law did not bar the policyholders from bringing such claims. Accordingly, the court held that the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, in accordance with the opinion.View "ABN AMRO Bank, N.V., et al. v. MBIA Inc., et al." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from Reliance Group Holdings, Inc.'s ("RGH") and Reliance Financial Services Corporation's ("RFS") voluntary petitions in Bankruptcy Court seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and the trust that was established as a result. The trust subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging actuarial fraud and accounting fraud against respondents. At issue was whether the trust qualified for the so-called single-entity exemption that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"), 15 U.S.C. 77p(f)(2)(C); 78bb(f)(5)(D), afforded certain entities. The court held that the trust, established under the bankruptcy reorganization plan of RGH as the debtor's successor, was "one person" within the meaning of the single-entity exemption in SLUSA. As a result, SLUSA did not preclude the Supreme Court from adjudicating the state common law fraud claims that the trust had brought against respondents for the benefit of RGH's and RFS's bondholders. Accordingly, the court reversed and reinstated the order of the Supreme Court.View "The RGH Liquidating Trust v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, et al." on Justia Law