Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

In 2007, Olsen granted Country Visions a 10-year right of first refusal on Wisconsin land. The right was recorded in local property records. Olsen subsequently dissolved and, in 2010, its former partners filed for bankruptcy. Country Visions was not notified and was not listed in the bankruptcy proceedings. Under an agreed plan, ADM became the owner of the Wisconsin land. Country Visions was not given an opportunity to exercise its right of first refusal. In 2015, ADM arranged to resell the property. Country Vision sought compensation in state court.ADM asked the bankruptcy court to enforce the “free and clear” sale and prohibit the state court litigation, citing 11 U.S.C. 363(m). The bankruptcy court and district court denied ADM’s request. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Good-faith purchasers are protected by section 363(m) but ADM was not a good-faith purchaser and must defend the state court litigation. ADM had actual notice of the right, in a title report, but did not notify the bankruptcy court; as a non-party, Country Visions could not be expected to appeal the order approving the sale. View "Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. v. Country Visions Cooperative" on Justia Law

McDonald worked as an Ohio bank examiner and a loan officer. As a loan officer, McDonald obtained funds by fraudulently making loans to others. Some of the loans were unknown to the “borrowers.” McDonald filed for individual Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The U.S. Trustee argued that 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(5) prevented the discharge of his debts because McDonald had failed to satisfactorily explain the dissipation of many of his assets. McDonald produced bank statements, brokerage account statements, canceled checks, and his tax returns for 2012-2015. He did not produce his 2010-2011 tax returns, bank account records covering January-March 2010, or many canceled checks, which the court requested. More than $250,000 of McDonald’s assets were unaccounted for. At the Rule 2004 Exam, McDonald refused to testify about one loan, exercising his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He later confessed to the scheme.The bankruptcy court granted the Trustee summary judgment. The district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed. Section 727(a)(5) contains no intent requirement; it “imposes strict liability” when the debtor fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the deficiency in assets. McDonald's threadbare recitation from memory is not enough. His testimony throughout the bankruptcy proceedings was rife with unclear, uncertain statements often couched with “likely,” “I think,” or “I don’t know.” View "Vara v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Debtor and Creditor have three children. Their decree of dissolution was entered in 2008. Domestic support and child custody issues have continued to be litigated. In 2017, Creditor obtained primary custody of the children; he filed a Motion for Child Support and Motion for Contempt in Family Court. A monthly support amount was determined. Pre-petition, the Family Court established that the parties would split the cost of the childrens' medical care and extra-curricular activities. Creditor was seeking reimbursement for Debtor’s share of incurred expenses when Debtor’s bankruptcy petition was filed. The Family Court, post-petition, found Debtor in contempt of a prior order.Debtor filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court requesting sanctions for violation of the automatic stay for the post-petition hearing and Creditor’s collection efforts made pursuant to Family Court orders. The Bankruptcy Court found that some actions violated the automatic stay and awarded attorneys’ fees as actual damages and punitive damages. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. The Family Court hearing was conducted to modify a domestic support obligation; the hearing and subsequent garnishment order were excepted from the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(2)(A)(ii); 362(b)(2)(C). The Family Court Judgment finding Debtor in civil contempt violated the stay and is void. An order of payment, directly to Creditor, toward a pre-petition debt, also violated the stay. View "In re: Dougherty-Kelsay" on Justia Law

Under the “individual mandate” within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, non-exempt individuals must either maintain a minimum level of health insurance or pay a “penalty,” 26 U.S.C. 5000A, the “shared responsibility payment” (SRP). The McPhersons did not maintain health insurance for part of 2017, and Juntoff did not maintain health insurance in any month in 2018. They did not pay their SRP obligations. In each of their Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, the IRS filed proofs of claim and sought priority treatment as an “excise/income tax”: for Juntoff, $1,042.39, and for the McPhersons, $1,564.The bankruptcy court confirmed their plans, declining to give the IRS claims priority as a tax measured by income. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed. DIstinguishing the Sebelius decision in which the Supreme Court determined that the SRP constituted a “penalty” for purposes of an Anti-Injunction Act analysis and a “tax” under a constitutionality analysis, the Panel concluded that the SRP is not a penalty but a tax measured by income. It is “calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based on a specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the average annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance.” View "In re: Juntoff" on Justia Law

Springfield, debtors in bankruptcy who applied for and were denied Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funds pursuant to the CARES Act solely due to their bankruptcy status, initiated this adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against the Administrator of the SBA, in her official capacity. Springfield challenges the SBA's administration of PPP funds and asks that the bankruptcy court enjoin the SBA from denying its PPP application on the basis of its bankruptcy status.The Second Circuit held that, based upon the plain language of Section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, that the PPP is a loan guaranty program and not an "other similar grant," and Section 525(a) does not apply to the PPP. Therefore, the bankruptcy court incorrectly ruled that Springfield was entitled to summary judgment and a permanent injunction. Rather, the court concluded, as a matter of law, that summary judgment in the SBA's favor is warranted on the Section 525(a) claim, reversing the judgment and vacating the permanent injunction. The court remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. View "Springfield Hospital, Inc. v. Guzman" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment and held that, under the particular circumstances presented here, Ultra Resources is not subject to a separate public-law obligation to continue performance of its rejected contract, and that 11 U.S.C. 1129(a)(6) did not require the bankruptcy court to seek FERC's approval before it confirmed Ultra Resource's reorganization plan.Applying In re Mirant Corp., 378 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2004), the court concluded that the power of the bankruptcy court to authorize rejection of a filed-rate contract does not conflict with the authority given to FERC to regulate rates; rejection is not a collateral attack upon the contract's filed rate because that rate is given full effect when determining the breach of contract damages resulting from the rejection; and in ruling on a rejection motion, bankruptcy courts must consider whether rejection harms the public interest or disrupts the supply of energy, and must weigh those effects against the contract's burden on the bankrupt estate. Because Mirant clearly holds that rejection of a contract is not a collateral attack on the filed rate, the court concluded that FERC does not have the authority to compel continued performance and continued payment of the filed rate after a valid rejection. The court rejected any further arguments to the contrary. View "Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Ultra Resources" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment reversing the bankruptcy court's denial of claimants' motions seeking leave to file their respective proofs of claim. Considering the four Pioneer factors, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in determining that claimants failed to meet their burden of proving excusable neglect. Although the danger-of-prejudice factor weighs in favor of claimants, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by holding that the length-of-delay factor weighs in favor of debtors. Furthermore, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the reason-for-the-delay factor and the good faith factor weighs in debtors' favor. Given the exceptionally deferential standard of review applicable here, and because the prejudice factor does not outweigh the other three Pioneer factors, the court cannot say that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion. View "West Wilmington Oil Field Claimants v. Nabors Corporate Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit concluded on the merits that, under the Bankruptcy Code and the applicable state fraudulent transfer statutes, tax penalty obligations are not voidable, and relatedly, tax penalty payments are not recoverable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision upholding the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the trustee's claims seeking to void tax penalty obligations owed by the debtor to the IRS and to recover prior payments made by the debtor to the IRS upon such obligations.The court found the Sixth Circuit's decision in In re Southeast Waffles, LLC, 702 F.3d 850 (6th Cir. 2012), persuasive and concluded that tax penalties do not fit within the obligations contemplated in the North Carolina Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. Because tax penalties are not obligations incurred as contemplated by the Act, it cannot be the "applicable law" required for the trustee to bring this action under 11 U.S.C. 544(b)(1). If there is no applicable law for the trustee's section 544(b)(1) claim, the court concluded that the claim must be dismissed. The court noted that its conclusion about the tax penalty payments turns on the legitimacy of the underlying tax penalty obligation; not the fact that the payments reduced the amount of the tax penalty obligations dollar for dollar. Since the underlying tax penalty obligation is not voidable, neither are Yahweh Center’s payments on that obligation. View "Cook v. United States" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of debtor's motion for leave to appeal the bankruptcy court's order denying without prejudice a creditor's request for relief from the automatic stay. In Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 582 (2020), the Supreme Court addressed the finality of a bankruptcy court order denying a creditor's request for relief from the automatic stay. The panel concluded that, under the circumstances presented here and the considerations set forth in Ritzen and court precedent, the bankruptcy court's order was final and appealable because the bankruptcy court's denial of the creditor's motion conclusively resolved the request for stay relief. View "Harrington v. Mayer" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision reversing the bankruptcy court's order allowing creditor's claim in the bankruptcy proceedings of Rejuvi, a chapter 11 debtor. Creditor seeks recognition and enforcement of a default money judgment for personal injuries against Rejuvi granted by an Australian district court. The panel held that Rejuvi waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by voluntarily appearing in the South Australian district court when it sought relief from the default judgment. Accordingly, the panel remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The panel granted creditor's motion to take judicial notice of Rules 230 and 242 of the 2006 Civil Rules of the District Court of South Australia. View "Corso v. Rejuvi Laboratory, Inc." on Justia Law