Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Debtor appealed from an order of the bankruptcy court dismissing his Chapter 13 case and an order denying his motion for a new trial. The court held that the trustee's brief was filed on the date it was due and debtor's objection, construed as a motion to strike, was denied; the proposed amicus brief had no bearing on the matters currently on appeal, so the motion for leave to file was denied; and the bankruptcy court's findings were supported by the facts of the case and it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Chapter 13 case nor denying the motion for new trial. View "Paulson v. Wein" on Justia Law

Countrywide appealed a class certification order of the bankruptcy court. Plaintiffs are former chapter 13 debtors with mortgages serviced by Countrywide. Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that the fees Countrywide charged while plaintiffs' bankruptcy cases were still pending were unreasonable, unapproved, and undisclosed under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016(a). Because the bankruptcy court's decision was not an abuse of discretion, the court affirmed its grant of class certification for plaintiff's injunctive relief claim. Because the court's precedence rejected the fail-safe class prohibition, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it defined the class in the present case. Because the court concluded that Countrywide's Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration was not based on newly discovered evidence, the court did not revisit the bankruptcy court's separate merits denial of the motion. View "Rodriguez, et al v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

When AFC filed for bankruptcy in 2009, the FDIC was appointed receiver for AFC’s subsidiary, AmTrust and sought payment from AFC under 11 U.S.C. 365(o), which requires that a party seeking Chapter-11 bankruptcy fulfill “any commitment . . . to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution.” The FDIC argued that AFC made such a commitment by agreeing to entry of a cease-and-desist order requiring AFC’s board to “ensure that [the Bank] complies” with the Bank’s own obligation to “have and maintain” capital ratios of 7 percent (Tier 1) and 12 percent (total). The district court found that the order was not a capital-maintenance commitment under section 365(o). The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The cease-and-desist order is ambiguous and could reasonably be read as establishing either an oversight role or a capital-maintenance commitment and the bulk of the extrinsic evidence favored the “oversight” reading. View "Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Amtrust Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs delivered artifacts from a famous shipwreck to Debtor for display and, according to Debtor, sale in Debtor’s jewelry store. The store went out of business. When Debtor returned the artifacts, an emerald pendant and musket balls were missing. Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty, common law conversion, and statutory conversion or negligence. A Michigan state court found that Debtor’s failure to respond to any written discovery requests, file a response to the Motion for Summary Disposition, and appear at the hearing were sufficient basis for entry of summary disposition and awarded $42,706.10. The judgment did not specify the claim upon which it was based. Debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Plaintiffs filed an adversary complaint seeking to have the debt declared nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4), stating that Debtor’s actions constituted “fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.” The bankruptcy court granted Plaintiffs summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The bankruptcy court erred when it held that the issue of fraud was “necessarily determined” by the state court; the state court judgment cannot have issue preclusive effect as to this element for nondischargeability under the embezzlement portion of section 523(a)(4). View "In re: Dantone" on Justia Law

GTI went bankrupt after it purchased OAI, a subsidiary of Onkyo for $13 million in cash and $12 million in three-year promissory notes. Onkyo filed a proof of claim for $12 million. GTI responded by suing Onkyo under the theory that the OAI purchase was a fraudulent, voidable transaction. The bankruptcy court agreed, finding that OAI was worth $6.9 million at the time of the transaction, not $25 million. The court voided GTI’s obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase price and ordered Onkyo to repay GTI $6.1 million. The district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed. The bankruptcy court’s determination that the indirect benefits were insubstantial was valid without the necessity of providing calculations; its adoption of GTI’s expert’s value based on the comparable transactions method was not clearly erroneous. Once the bankruptcy court determined that the sale of OAI had been a fraudulent transfer and Onkyo was a good-faith transferee, awarding GTI relief was a simple matter of subtraction. View "Onkyo Europe Elec., GMBH v. Global Technovations Inc." on Justia Law

The bankruptcy court denied confirmation of debtor's initial Chapter 13 plan because it proposed to "strip off" second and third mortgage liens on his residence. Debtor filed a modified plan that preserved those liens, noting his objection, and appealed the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the modified plan to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP). The BAP reversed, concluding that a Chapter 13 debtor could strip a wholly unsecured residential mortgage lien, addressing additional issues, and remanded to the bankruptcy court to consider whether debtor's plan complied with the other confirmation requirements. The trustee appealed. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the BAP's remand order was not a final order for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(1). View "Fisette v. Keller" on Justia Law

In 1998, Harchars filed a Chapter 13 petition. The government was a creditor because of a tax arrearage. A reorganization plan was confirmed, requiring that they pay in full priority tax claims and pay five cents on the dollar, over 43 months, unsecured, nonpriority claims by the government and similarly-situated creditors. In 2000, Harchars pursued an adversary proceeding, alleging injury caused by the government’s practice of “freezing” computer-automated refunding of tax overpayments to Chapter 13 debtors and refusal to issue a refund for their 1999 return until after the bankruptcy court resolved its motion to modify the plan to include the refund in plan funding. Harchars opposed the motion, explaining that they had separated, husband was no longer employed, and the refund was needed for living expenses. After Harchars filed amended schedules, the IRS withdrew its motion and issued the refund with interest. The bankruptcy court concluded that the IRS had not violated the automatic stay by manually processing or withholding the tax refund. The district court affirmed and held that a due-process claim was barred by sovereign immunity and that Harchars did not identify any provision of the plan that had been violated. The Sixth Circuit affirmed and dismissed the claims. View "Harchar v. United States" on Justia Law

An involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition was filed against Quality Stores, which eventually closed operations and terminated all employees. Under the Pre-Petition Plan, severance pay was based on job grade. Payments were made on the normal payroll schedule, not tied to receipt of unemployment compensation, and not attributable to particular services. The Post-Petition Plan was designed to encourage employees to defer their job searches; the lump-sum payments were not tied to receipt of unemployment compensation, nor attributable to provision of particular services. Quality reported the payments as wages and withheld income tax, paid the employer’s share of FICA tax, and withheld each employee’s share of FICA. Of $1,000,125 at issue, $382,362 is attributed to the Pre-Petition Plan, $214,000 for the employer share and $168,362 for the employee share; $617,763 is attributed to the Post- Petition Plan, $357,127 for the employer share and $260,636 for the employee share. Quality argued that the payments were not wages but supplemental unemployment compensation benefits, not taxable under FICA, and sought a refund of the employer share and the shares of consenting employees. When the IRS did not act, Quality filed an adversary action in the bankruptcy court, which ordered a full refund. The district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed.View "United States v. Quality Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2002 Glover entered into a mortgage with WaMu. After being injured Glover fell behind on her mortgage in 2005 and requested a work-out agreement to reduce her payments. WaMu initially threatened to foreclose, but subsequently agreed to postpone her payments until the request had been evaluated. Eventually, WaMu denied the request. Murray, an attorney with Udren Law Offices, called Glover and informed her that she owed WaMu missed payments, attorney’s fees and costs, totaling $3,397.28. WaMu then filed a foreclosure complaint. After communications between Glover and WaMu‘s assignee, Wells Fargo, Glover entered into a loan modification agreement with Wells Fargo. Glover filed a putative class-action against WaMu, Wells Fargo, and the Udren firm, alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, premised on violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed. An FDCPA claim was not timely because Glover’s amended pleadings did not provide the fair notice required for relatation back to her original filing View "Glover v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

Knight was owner and CEO of Knight Industries, which owned other companies. Bank had provided credit ($34 million) to the companies, which, in 2009, filed bankruptcy petitions. Chatz was appointed trustee and was authorized to retain the Freeborn law firm. Chatz and the Bank alleged that Knight had made fraudulent transfers, had breached duties of good faith and fair dealing and duties to creditors, had misappropriated corporate opportunities, had committed conversion, and had violated securities laws, and demanded $27 million for the companies and $34 million for the Bank. In 2010 Knight filed a chapter 7 petition, listing the claims, value “unknown.” Chatz, appointed as trustee, requested representation by the Freeborn law firm, without disclosing intent to pursue the claims against Knight. The bankruptcy court approved. Later, the Bank and Chatz asked to assign the companies’ claims to the Bank. Knight objected, arguing that approval of the law firm conflicted with the companies having viable claims against Knight. The bankruptcy court overruled Knight’s objection. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed. Failure to disclose intent to pursue the claims did not harm Knight, and other remedies are available. It would be inequitable to permit Knight to reap huge benefits from harmless omission.View "Knight v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law