Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff sued the bank after it refused to honor cashier's checks it thought he had obtained by fraud. One check, for $100,000, had previously bounced, another was a starter check for $80,000 and was dated five months earlier. The bank had communication with plaintiff's former employer, indicating fraud. The district court granted summary judgment to the bank. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Under the Uniform Commercial Code as enacted in Michigan, the bank's actions were lawful even absent any finding of fraud. The checks were not supported by consideration, plaintiff was not a person entitled to enforce the instruments, and plaintiff was not harmed.

The United States Trustee, Region 3, appealed a district court’s reversal of sanctions originally imposed by the bankruptcy court on attorneys Mark Udren and Lorraine Doyle and HSBC for violating the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. "This case [was] an unfortunate example of the ways in which overreliance on computerized processes in a high-volume practice, as well as a failure on the part of client and lawyers alike to take responsibility for accurate knowledge of a case, can lead to attorney misconduct before a court." At issue were two pleadings that HSBC’s attorneys filed in bankruptcy court. Both documents contained imperfect information and were filed with the court. The attorneys appealed the sanctions order arguing that the facts contained in the filed documents were "actually literally true." Upon review, the Third Circuit found that the statements therein were not wholly true, and faulted counsel for "rubber-stamping" the information taken from its computerized database without additional investigation as to their veracity: "[w]here a lawyer systematically fails to take any responsibility for seeking adequate information from her client, makes representations without any factual basis because they are included in a "form pleading" she has been trained to fill out, and ignores obvious indications that her information may be incorrect, she cannot be said to have made reasonable inquiry." The Court concluded the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions on Doyle or the Udren Firm itself. However, it found the lower court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions on Udren individually.

Appellant appealed the bankruptcy court's approval of a multi-million dollar, global settlement in one of the largest Ponzi scheme bankruptcies in American history. The settlement had been substantially consummated and the appeal had been rendered largely moot. The court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement where the record upon which the bankruptcy court based its approval of the settlement was sufficient and where the settlement satisfied the Flight Transportation/Drexel factors. Accordingly, the order of the bankruptcy court approving the settlement was affirmed.

The Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC) appealed from the judgment of the bankruptcy court, later affirmed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), which discharged the student loan debt of debtor under the "undue hardship" provision of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8). The court held that it was not clear error to consider debtor's financial condition from the date of discharge to the date debtor sought undue hardship relief. The court also held that there was no clear error in not calculating debtor's husband's part time income where debtor and her husband stipulated their adjusted gross income in 2007. Even when the payroll deductions were excluded, the expenses of the debtor and her dependents outstripped her available resources. Therefore, the court held that, in light of the overall circumstances, excepting debtor's student loan debt from discharge would impose an undue hardship on her.

The bankruptcy court issued an order that authorized the debtor to reimburse qualified bidders for expenses incurred in connection with the sale of a substantial asset of the debtor's estate. Debtor and debtor's parent companies subsequently appealed the bankruptcy court's reimbursement order. As a preliminary matter, the court held that it had jurisdiction over the appeal where, in settling this "discrete dispute," the reimbursement order was sufficiently separable from the rest of the bankruptcy proceeding to be appealable as a "final" order under 28 U.S.C. 158(a) and (d). The court also held that, based on the record, the bankruptcy court did not err in issuing the reimbursement order under the business judgment standard in section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Former investors with Bernard L. Madoff appealed from an order entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court in the liquidation proceedings of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA), 15 U.S.C. 78aaa et seq. At issue was whether the Net Investment Method the trustee selected for carrying out his responsibilities under SIPA was legally sound under the language of the statutes. The court held that the trustee's determination as to how to calculate "net equity" under SIPA was legally sound in light of the circumstances of the case and the relevant statutory language. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order of the bankruptcy court.

The trustee of Cheryl Reagan's bankruptcy estate, and Latta Bachelor, the personal representative of Ronald Reagan's probate estate, appealed from an order of the district court affirming the judgment of the bankrutpcy court in this interpleader and declaratory judgment action filed by Regions Bank. The court held that although Cheryl, acting as executrix, retained control over the assets in Ronald's estate, and she may have improperly exercised that control in her capacity as executrix, her conduct in that capacity did not invalidate the spendthrift provisions. Because the spendthrift provision was enforceable under Arkansas law, Cheryl's interest in the net income from Trust C was subject to a "restriction on... transfer" under "applicable nonbankruptcy law," the section 541(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code's exception applied, and Cheryl's interest in the distributions of net income from Trust C was not a part of her bankruptcy estate. Appellants have failed to establish the requisite inducement and detrimental reliance to successfully assert that Cheryl should be estopped from claiming the benefit of the spendthrift trust.

This case arose when debtor, a former firefighter, and his wife, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, but failed to disclose on their bankruptcy schedules either his judgment against the City of Arlington (an asset of the estate) or his associated legal fees (a liability of the estate). At issue was whether judicial estoppel barred a blameless bankruptcy trustee from pursuing a judgment that the debtor, having concealed the judgment during bankruptcy, was himself estopped from pursuing. The court held that it did not. The court concluded that this result upheld the purpose of judicial estoppel, which in this context was to protect the integrity of the bankruptcy process, by adhering to basic tenets of bankruptcy law and by preserving the assets of the bankruptcy estate for equitable distribution to the estate's innocent creditors.

The debtor's property was subject to first and second mortgages with complex histories of assignment involving the defendants. The district court dismissed the chapter 7 trustee's action for declaratory judgment to determine the validity, extent, and priority of defendants' liens and vacated a default judgment entered against one defendant, Wilmington. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded in part and affirmed in part. Under 11 U.S.C. 544 and Ky. Rev. Stat. 355.9-102(1)(az)(3), operating together, the trustee's interest as a hypothetical judicial lien creditor is superior to those security interests which are unperfected as of the filing of the petition, so the trustee stated a claim against GMAC. The bankruptcy court must make further factual findings regarding Litton and Bank of New York as to the first mortgage, to determine which was the secured party on the date of the filing of the petition. The record established that Wilmington was not a proper party, having assigned its interest years earlier, and the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion in setting aside the default judgment.

Plaintiff, the Chapter 7 trustee, appealed the bankruptcy court's entry of a judgment in favor of defendants on his complaint seeking turnover under 11 U.S.C. 542 of money allegedly owed to the bankruptcy estate. The court held that while there was no clear error in the bankruptcy court's determination that defendants were not unjustly enriched and therefore, defendants were not indebted to the bankruptcy estate, the court affirmed on the more fundamental ground that the relief sought by the trustee was beyond the scope of 11 U.S.C. 542.