Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

During the early 1990s, debtor Redondo entered into three construction contracts with the Authority: the Patillas project, construction of a bridge and access road; the Dorado project, replacement of a different bridge; the Mayguez project, highway improvements. The Authority retained the right to modify the plans; Redondo had the right to seek extra compensation. Redondo also could claim extra compensation for certain contingencies requiring substantial additional work. Each project encountered unanticipated problems, including unforeseen site conditions and flawed design plans. Redondo completed all three projects and submitted claims for additional amounts owed under the contracts, including claims for two subcontractors on the Mayaguez project. With the claims unresolved, Redondo filed for bankruptcy protection, 11 U.S.C. 1101-1174, and served the Authority with adversary complaints. The bankruptcy court awarded the debtor a total of $12,028,311.92 plus prejudgment interest at 6.5 percent, later reduced by $69,792.26. The district court affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed in part, rejecting claims concerning timely notice on one project and Redondo's standing to assert subcontractor claims. The court vacated and remanded calculation of extended overhead damages and the award of prejudgment interest. View "PR Highway and Transp. Auth. v. Redondo Constr. Corp." on Justia Law

BMD was a subcontractor for Industrial, a subcontractor for Walbridge, the general contractor for construction of a factory near Indianapolis. Fidelity was surety for Industrial’s obligations to BMD. The project proceeded for about a year before the manufacturer declared bankruptcy. Walbridge failed to pay Industrial, Industrial failed to pay BMD, and Fidelity refused to pay BMD, which sued Fidelity on the bond. Their subcontract conditioned Industrial's duty to pay on its own receipt of payment. The district court held that the pay-if-paid clause required Industrial to pay BMD only if Industrial received payment from Walbridge, rejecting an argument that it controlled only the timing of Industrial's obligation. The court held that pay-if-paid clauses are valid under public policy and that Fidelity could assert all defenses of its principal. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The subcontract expressly provides that Industrial's receipt of payment is a condition precedent to its obligation; it could have stated that BMD assumed the risk of the owner’s insolvency, but additional language was not necessary. Pay-if-paid clauses are valid under Indiana law and, under surety law, Fidelity may assert all defenses of its principal. Industrial was never obligated to pay BMD; BMD may not recover on the bond. View "BMD Contractors, Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of MD" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed an order of the bankruptcy court granting relief from the automatic stay to Bank of the West. At issue was whether the bankruptcy court properly granted relief from the automatic stay to Bank of the West to exercise its rights under state law with respect to real property that it purchased at a foreclosure sale. The court affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court where Bank of the West was a "party in interest" under Bankruptcy Code 362(d) and where the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion when it granted relief from the stay to Bank of the West for "cause." View "Bushnell v. Bank of the West" on Justia Law

In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the airline extracted concessions that resulted in an approximate 40 percent wage cut for pilots in return for an $888 million claim in bankruptcy to be disbursed as stock shares. The union first suggested that a pilot's share should reflect time that the pilot worked during the 85-month concessionary period, but ultimately adopted a cutoff date for determining which pilots would receive full shares. The cutoff assumed that any pilot employed on the effective date of the Restructuring Agreement would remain employed through its termination four years later. Any pilot who left before the date would receive a share based the number of months that the pilot worked during the concessionary period. All participants in the Early Retirement Program retired after the cutoff date. Plaintiffs, retirees who reached mandatory retirement age and left before the cutoff, received shares at least $100,000 less than expected. The union rejected appeals. The district court granted summary judgment to the union. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that the union breached its duty of fair representation, Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 15, and discriminated based on age, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 623(c)(1), and Mich. Comp. Laws 37.2204(a). View "Bondurant v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l" on Justia Law

A Trustee was appointed in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The estate included 44 lots, subdivided and zoned for mobile homes. Lot 45 contained an assisted living facility. The lots shared infrastructure and were subject to restrictions, including one prohibiting transfer of lots for construction of residences and requiring that title remain in the developer. GCL purchased Lot 45. The township solicitor agreed and the Bankruptcy Court declared the sale free of the restriction. The Trustee discovered that some residents had affixed mobile homes to the land. To resolve the matter, the Trustee agreed to sell lots to the residents. The trustee and the township entered agreement, abrogating the restriction as to the lots. CGL, not a party to that agreement, alleged that the sales damaged its property interests in Lot 45 and that the agreement deprived CGL of its property rights without notice and without due process of law. The Bankruptcy Court concluded that the claims were not frivolous and could be filed in state court. The district court and Third Circuit affirmed. The Barton doctrine, which requires a party seeking to sue a court-appointed receiver, to obtain leave of the appointing court, continues to apply to bankruptcy trustees.View "In Re: VistaCare Group, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Debtors appealed from a bankruptcy court order dismissing their chapter 13 case without prejudice. The court held that, while the final order dismissing the case was timely appealed and was properly before the court, debtors simply did not provide any basis, or even a remote suggestion, that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by ordering their case dismissed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court. View "Johnson, et al. v. Fink" on Justia Law

The company and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sought to resolve asbestos-related liability through the creation of a personal-injury trust under 11 U.S.C. 524(g). As part of its reorganization plan, it sought to transfer rights under insurance liability policies to the trust. The Insurers had provided liability policies to the debtors prior to bankruptcy and objected that the transfer violated the policies' anti-assignment provisions. The bankruptcy and district courts held that 11 U.S.C. 1123(a)(5)(B) preempts those provisions. The Third Circuit affirmed. Section 524 trusts are the only national statutory scheme available to resolve asbestos litigation through a quasi-administrative process. The plain language of 11 U.S.C. 1123(a) evinces clear intent for a preemptive scope that includes transfer of property to a 524 trust; that preemption reaches private contracts enforced by state common law. View "In Re: Fed-Mogul Global, Inc." on Justia Law

The SEC filed a complaint. The court appointed a receiver to handle defendants' assets for distribution among victims of the $31 million fraud. Assets included oil and gas leases. SonCo filed a claim. The parties came to terms; the court entered an agreed order that required SonCo to pay $580,000 for assignment of the leases. The wells were unproductive, because of freeze orders entered to prevent dissipation of assets; the lease operator, ALCO, had posted a $250,000 bond with the Texas Railroad Commission. The bond was, in part, from defrauded investors. SonCo was ordered to replace ALCO as operator and to obtain a bond. More than a year later, SonCo had not posted the bond or obtained Commission authorization to operate the wells, but had paid for the assignment. The judge held SonCo in contempt and ordered it to return the leases, allowing the receiver to keep $600,000 that SonCo had paid. SonCo returned the leases. The Seventh Circuit affirmed that SonCo willfully violated the order, but vacated the sanction. The judge on remand may: reimpose the sanction, upon demonstrating that it is a compensatory remedy for civil contempt; impose a different, or no sanction; or proceed under rules governing criminal contempt. View "SonCo Holdings, LLC v. Bradley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff's bank, Firstar, erroneously dishonored her check for her April 2002 monthly mortgage payment to Aames. Firstar issued an "official check" to Aames on April 8, 2002 but also failed to honor that check. Aames notified plaintiff of default on April 20 and assessed a late fee. Firstar ultimately honored her personal check as well as one of two official checks, resulting in two mortgage payments received for the month of April. Plaintiff did not submit a payment for May. Aames sent notice that it had assigned the mortgage to Ocwen, which began dunning plaintiff and her husband, who is not a co-borrower, for the May payment, despite proof of the double payment. No assignment was recorded. Ocwen made endless collection calls, despite cease and desist requests and registry on the federal “Do Not Call” directory; threatened foreclosure; assessed late fees; and reported derogatory information to the credit reporting agencies. Plaintiffs alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692. The district court dismissed, concluding that neither defendant was covered under the Act as neither was a debt collector. The Sixth Circuit reversed, stating that defendants cannot "have it both ways." View "Bridge v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the Chapter 7 trustee for the bankruptcy estate of BioniCare Medical Technologies, contested determinations of the Medicare Appeals Council (MAC) refusing to provide coverage for the BIO-1000, a device to treat osteoarthritis of the knee. Plaintiff alleged that the Secretary improperly used the adjudicative process to create a policy of denying coverage for the BIO-1000, that the MAC's decisions were not supported by substantial evidence, and that the MAC's decisions were arbitrary and capricious on account of a variety of procedural errors. The court rejected those contentions and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Almy v. Sebelius" on Justia Law