Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

BDI elected under I.R.C. 1362(a) to be treated as an S-corporation, not subject to federal taxation because its profits and losses passed through to Barden, its sole shareholder. MSC owns the Majestic Star Casino and Hotel. BDI acquired MSC in 2005. BDI elected to treat MSC as a QSub (I.R.C. 1361(b)(3)(B), not as a separate tax entity. MSC, therefore, paid no federal taxes. In 2009, MSC and its affiliates filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions. Barden and BDI were not debtors. After the petition, Barden caused revocation of BDI’s status as an S-corporation; MSC’s QSub status automatically terminated because it was no longer wholly owned by an S-corp. Neither BDI nor Barden sought authorization from the debtors or from the Bankruptcy Court. MSC allegedly was unaware that it had a new obligation to pay income taxes. As of first date federal taxes would have been due, the debtors had paid no federal income taxes. The Bankruptcy Court permitted conversion of MSC to a limited liability company, so that MSC would no longer qualify for QSub status, even if the Revocation had not occurred. The debtors sought to avoid the Revocation, which, they alleged, caused an unlawful post-petition transfer of property. The Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment to the debtors. The Third Circuit vacated and directed that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "In Re:Majestic Star Casino LLC" on Justia Law

Peoples Bank loaned Debtors $214,044, secured by a mortgage recorded in 2004. In 2008, Debtors obtained a $296,000 construction loan from Banterra, secured with a second mortgage on the same property. Banterra was aware of the first mortgage, but did not know was that in 2007, Debtors obtained a second loan from Peoples, for $400,000, secured by another mortgage on a different piece of property. The 2004 Peoples mortgage contained a cross-collateralization provision, stating that “In addition to the Note, this Mortgage secures all obligations … of Grantor to Lender … now existing or hereafter arising,” and a provision that “At no time shall the principal amount of the Indebtedness secured by the Mortgage … exceed $214,044.26 … “Indebtedness” … includes all amounts that may be indirectly secured by the Cross-Collateralization provision.” In 2010 Debtors filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The balance due on Peoples 2004 loan was then $115,044.26. Debtors received permission and sold the property for $388,500.00. Out of these proceeds, Peoples claimed the balance due on the 2004 loan plus partial payment of the 2007, up to the cap. The Bankruptcy Court found in favor of Peoples. The district court reversed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, upholding the “plain language” of the cross-collateralization agreement. View "Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Banterra Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC against his employer, Dollar General, alleging that Dollar General failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213. While awaiting the EEOC's notice of his right to sue, plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Then plaintiff filed the present suit in district court. Dollar General moved for summary judgment, arguing that the filing of plaintiff's Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition deprived plaintiff of standing to maintain his ADA claim. The court agreed with its sister circuits and concluded that because of the powers vested in the Chapter 13 debtor and trustee, a Chapter 13 debtor could retain standing to bring his pre-bankruptcy petition claims. The court also concluded that because plaintiff was unable to show that he could perform the essential functions of his position with a reasonable accommodation, the district court properly granted summary judgment in Dollar General's favor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View " Wilson v. Dollar General Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner’s father established a trust for the benefit of petitioner and his siblings, and made petitioner the nonprofessional trustee. The trust’s sole asset was the father’s life insurance policy. Petitioner borrowed funds from the trust three times; all borrowed funds were repaid with interest. His siblings obtained a state court judgment for breach of fiduciary duty, though the court found no apparent malicious motive. The court imposed constructive trusts on petitioner’s interests, including his interest in the original trust, to secure payment of the judgment, with respondent serving as trustee for all of the trusts. Petitioner filed for bankruptcy. Respondent opposed discharge of debts to the trust. The Bankruptcy Court held that petitioner’s debts were not dischargeable under 11 U. S. C. 523(a)(4), which provides that an individual cannot obtain a bankruptcy discharge from a debt “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.” The district court and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated. The term “defalcation” in the Bankruptcy Code includes a culpable state of mind requirement involving knowledge of, or gross recklessness in respect to, the improper nature of the fiduciary behavior. The Court previously interpreted the term “fraud” in the exceptions to mean “positive fraud, or fraud in fact, involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong.” The term “defalcation” should be treated similarly. Where the conduct does not involve bad faith, moral turpitude, or other immoral conduct, “defalcation” requires an intentional wrong. An intentional wrong includes not only conduct that the fiduciary knows is improper but also reckless conduct of the kind that the criminal law often treats as the equivalent. Where actual knowledge of wrongdoing is lacking, conduct is considered as equivalent if, as set forth in the Model Penal Code, the fiduciary “consciously disregards,” or is willfully blind to, “a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that his conduct will violate a fiduciary duty. View "Bullock v. BankChampaign, N. A." on Justia Law

Debtors filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and sought to discharge their unsecured debt, strip down liens on their primary residence and a rental property, and obtain a loan modification to address mortgage arrears on the properties. The Trustee subsequently challenged confirmation orders entered by the bankruptcy court and affirmed by the district court, stripping off junior liens against debtors' residences. The Trustee argued that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 created a per se rule barring lien-stripping in so-called "Chapter 20" cases. The Act, however, dd not bar the orders entered by the bankruptcy court, and the stripping off of valueless liens - liens secured by collateral without a single penny of value to support it - was otherwise consistent with the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Branigan v. Davis" on Justia Law

Appellant, a creditor of the debtor corporation, appealed a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of his motion to determine claims. The bankruptcy court granted appellant's subsequent motion to reopen the case, agreeing with the state court that appellant's claims were precluded and denied his motion to determine claims. The BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court on a different ground, reasoning that the bankruptcy court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider appellant's motion. Because the court must accord the state court's judgment preclusive effect under 28 U.S.C. 1738, the court affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court. View "Cawley v. Celeste, et al" on Justia Law

SEFCU, a lender, appealed from the district court's reversal of an order of the bankruptcy court and remanding the case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. The district court concluded that SEFCU violated the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 362, when, after lawfully repossessing a vehicle belonging to debtor, it failed to deliver the vehicle to him notwithstanding its knowledge of debtor's pending petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court concluded that SEFCU "exercised control" over "property" of debtor's bankruptcy estate in contravention of section 362 when it failed to relinquish the vehicle promptly after it learned that a Chapter 13 petition was filed. Consequently, under section 362(k), SEFCU was liable for debtor's actual damages resulting from the wrongful retention, costs, and attorneys' fees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Weber v. SEFCU" on Justia Law

This was an appeal of the bankruptcy court's order granting debtor's motion to dismiss an adversary proceeding as untimely. Prior to debtor's bankruptcy filing, plaintiffs filed a complaint against debtor asserting various state law claims including intentional torts. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) concluded that since there was no deadline to file a complaint under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(3)(B), plaintiffs had the right to proceed with their complaint to try to prove that they held a debt of a kind described in section 523(a)(6). Therefore, the BAP reversed the bankruptcy court's order granting the motion to dismiss. View "Hathorn, et al v. Petty" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the existence, validity, and priority of liens of three lenders on a piece of equipment that was owned by the debtor, and the proceeds from the sale in bankruptcy of that equipment. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) concluded that the bankruptcy court correctly held that BOW held a senior security interest in the equipment and the grant of summary judgment to BOW to NBKC's claims for equitable relief based on mutual mistake was proper. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "Bank of the West v. National Bank of Kansas City" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy trustee of Northlake, a Georgia corporation, filed suit against defendant, a shareholder of Northlake, alleging that a 2006 Transfer was fraudulent. The facts raised in the complaint and its exhibits, taken as true, were sufficient to conclude that Northlake's benefits under the Shareholders Agreement were reasonably equivalent exchange for the 2006 Transfer. Because the complaint contained no allegations indicating why these benefits did not constitute a reasonably equivalent exchange for the 2006 Transfer, the court had no ground to conclude that they did not. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Crumpton v. Stephen" on Justia Law