Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

The Bankruptcy Code does not bar a creditor from asserting an unsecured claim for attorneys' fees, if those fees are incurred after the filing of a bankruptcy petition but guaranteed by a pre-petition contract. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's determination to the contrary and remanded for further proceedings. In this case, the court held that neither 11 U.S.C. 502(b) or 506(b) expressly disallows a creditor like SummitBridge from asserting an unsecured claim for post-petition attorneys' fees based on a valid pre-petition contract. View "SummitBridge National Investments III, LLC v. Faison" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy trustee invoked both equitable and statutory mootness to try and block an appeal of a bankruptcy court's approval of a sale of key estate assets, including a settlement necessary to facilitate the transaction. The Fifth Circuit held that equitable mootness was inappropriate, because the settlement and sale were not sufficiently complex.However, the court held that 11 U.S.C. 363(m) made the bankruptcy court's approval the final word on the subject when the objector did not obtain a stay of that ruling. In this case, the bankruptcy court noted that there was no way to sever the settlement from the sale and that they were mutually dependent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the appeal. View "New Industries, Inc. v. Byman" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Jeffrey Baron's bankruptcy adversary proceeding under Rule 12(b)(6) against the trustee responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate of Ondova Limited Company. The court held that the trustee was entitled to absolute immunity for all actions taken pursuant to a court order, and entitled to qualified immunity for all other acts within the scope of his trustee duties. Furthermore, claims against the trustee's attorneys also failed because the attorneys were covered by both derivative trustee immunity and independent attorney immunity; the breach of fiduciary duty claim failed because Baron did not plausibly plead gross negligence; and Baron failed to raise the new causes of action contained within his proposed amended complaint in his briefs or argue that the district court erred in finding these claims unsuccessful. View "Baron v. Sherman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's order holding that CRP has an unenforceable judicial lien against the real property of debtor and avoiding that lien under 11 U.S.C. 522(f)(1). The court held that, under Missouri law, CRP's notice of foreign judgment did not give rise to a lien on debtor's exempt homestead property because he owned it jointly with his spouse. The court held that the foreign judgment created a cloud on title under Missouri law sufficient to constitute a charge against or interest in debtor's property under the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, the cloud on title created by CRP's recording of its judgment fastened an existing, but presently unenforceable lien on the property. Accordingly, the court held that application of section 522(f) would clear the cloud on title to debtor's property and thus the bankruptcy court properly granted debtor's motion to avoid the lien. View "CRP Holdings, A-1, LLC v. O'Sullivan" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment affirming a bankruptcy court order holding the Bank and its president in contempt and sanctioning them for violating a final bankruptcy discharge injunction. The court noted that it employed a flexible and pragmatic approach when assessing the preclusive effect of a court's order and held that the bankruptcy court did not issue a ruling that would have preclusive effect.The court held that, while post-discharge forbearance may serve as consideration for a new commitment to repay the present value of a lien, no cases suggested that a lienholder could leverage a security interest to obtain a larger repayment commitment, much less a larger commitment representing a discharged personal debt. Therefore, the district court did not err in finding that the Bank and its president were in contempt for violating a final bankruptcy discharge injunction. View "First State Bank of Roscoe v. Stabler" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of debtor's motion to reconsider the order entered which indefinitely extended the deadlines for payment of the last two installments of her filing fee. The court held that debtor's briefs contained extensive and repetitive factual argument expressing frustration with the bankruptcy process but she failed to identify any clearly erroneous facts or an incorrect application of the law that would entitle her to relief under any of the circumstances identified in Rule 60(b). View "Curran v. Moon" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the bankruptcy court's order requiring debtors, Ultra Petroleum, to pay certain creditors a contractual Make-Whole Amount and postpetition interest at a contractual default rate. In this case, debtors entered bankruptcy insolvent and now are solvent. At issue was whether the creditors were impaired by a plan that paid them everything allowed by the Bankruptcy Code.The court held that a creditor is not impaired by a reorganization plan simply because it incorporates the Bankruptcy Code's disallowance provisions. Because the bankruptcy court found otherwise, it did not address whether the Bankruptcy Code disallows the Make-Whole Amount or post-petition interest, and if not, how much debtors must pay the Class 4 Creditors. Therefore, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for the bankruptcy court to answer these issues in the first instance. View "Ultra Petroleum Corp. v. Ad Hoc Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Ultra Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel dismissed debtor's appeal of the bankruptcy court's order granting a motion for relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay filed by Deutsche Bank. The panel held that a foreclosure and sale of the property at issue rendered the issues raised on appeal moot and therefore the panel lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Marshall v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court, alleging that defendants wrongfully failed to pay debtor for produce held in trust for plaintiffs, in violation of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. The Second Circuit agreed with the bankruptcy judge and district court and affirmed summary judgment for plaintiffs, but held that defendants should receive a pro rata share of assets of the trust established under the Act.Because assets subject to the Act are held in a ʺfloatingʺ trust for the benefit of unpaid produce suppliers and never become part of a bankruptcy estate, when a purchaser of produce files for bankruptcy under Chapter 7, a creditor covered by the Actʹs provisions is entitled to a pro rata share of trust assets, but not to a complete offset of mutual debts between it and the bankrupt. In this case, although defendants did not file a proof of claim after the district court issued a claims process order under the Act, they preserved their claims by providing statutorily required notice to debtor in connection with each pre‐bankruptcy sale of fresh produce; filed a proof of claim with the bankruptcy court before the district court had issued the claims process order; and reasonably, although mistakenly, thought that they could vindicate their rights as creditors using a bankruptcy offset. View "The PACA Trust Creditors v. Genecco Produce Inc." on Justia Law

Before Buccanneer filed for bankruptcy, the company fired its CEO, who then filed a claim for breach of contract in the bankruptcy. The CEO later dropped the claim and filed a tortious interference with contract claim in state court against Buccaneer's secured creditor, Meridian. After Meridian moved to federal court, the bankruptcy court sent the tortious interference claim back to state court.The Fifth Circuit held that the tortious interference claim alleging a direct injury to the CEO was not property of the estate, and thus there was no basis for bankruptcy court jurisdiction. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment remanding the case back to state court. View "Meridian Capital CIS Fund v. Burton" on Justia Law