Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

The creditors shipped goods via common carrier from China to World Imports in the U.S. “free on board” at the port of origin. One shipment left Shanghai on May 26, 2013; World took physical possession of the goods in the U.S. on June 21. Other goods were shipped from Xiamen on May 17, May 31, and June 7, 2013, and were accepted in the U.S. within 20 days of the day on which World filed its Chapter 11 petition. The creditors filed Allowance and Payment of Administrative Expense Claims, 11 U.S.C. 503(b)(9), allowable if: the vendor sold ‘goods’ to the debtor; the goods were "received" by the debtor within 20 days before the bankruptcy filing; and the goods were sold in the ordinary course of business. Section 503(b)(9) does not define "received." The Bankruptcy Court rejected an argument that the UCC should govern and looked to the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). The CISG does not define “received,” so the court looked to international commercial terms (Incoterms) incorporated into the CISG. Although no Incoterm defines “received,” the incoterm governing FOB contracts indicates that the risk transfers to the buyer when the seller delivers the goods to the common carrier. The Bankruptcy Court and the district court found that the goods were “constructively received” when shipped and denied the creditors’ motions. The Third Circuit reversed; the word “received” in 11 U.S.C. 503(b)(9) requires physical possession. View "In re: World Imports Ltd" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision, 11 U.S.C. 362, does not operate to prevent the government's collection of criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). In this case, debtor pleaded guilty to embezzlement and theft of labor union assets, for which she served eighteen months in prison and agreed to pay $193,337.33 in criminal restitution. After debtor's bankruptcy filing, the government offset payments made as income to debtor against the balance of the restitution debt. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy appellate panel's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of debtor's motion to hold the government in contempt for violating the automatic stay through its collection efforts. View "Partida v. DOJ" on Justia Law

The Isaacs executed a mortgage to GMAC encumbering their Kentucky property. It states: “The lien ... will attach on the date this Mortgage is recorded.” The Isaacses filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in March 2004, listing the GMAC mortgage debt as secured debt. GMAC did not record the Mortgage until June 2004. GMAC did not seek relief from the automatic stay. No party sought to avoid the Mortgage. The Isaacses obtained a discharge; the case closed. Months later, the bankruptcy court reopened the case at the request of the Isaacses, avoided two judgment liens, and closed the case again. About 10 years later, GMAC’s successor obtained a default foreclosure Judgment and Order of Sale. Immediately before the scheduled sale date, wife (without husband) filed a chapter 13 petition, seeking to avoid the GMAC lien (11 U.S.C. 522(f)). In an adversary proceeding, the bankruptcy court found that GMAC was an unsecured creditor in the chapter 7 case, which discharged the debt; the foreclosure judgment was an improper modification of the discharge order, so that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed. The bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, precluding it from avoiding the state foreclosure judgment because the mortgage was enforceable against the Isaacses’ interests on the chapter 7 petition date. Since unavoided pre-petition liens pass through bankruptcy unaffected, the foreclosure judgment could not violate the chapter 7 discharge. View "In re: Isaacs" on Justia Law

Under Montana law, a debtor may claim an exemption for a health savings account (HSA) within the constraints imposed by Mont. Code Ann. 25-13-608(1)(d) or (f).Debtor in this case filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Debtor claimed his HSA exempt in the amount of $14,319.61 pursuant to section 25-13-608(1)(d) or (f). Debtor’s withdrawal of funds from the HSA was applied exclusively to qualified medical expenses. The trustee filed an objection to the claim of exemption. The bankruptcy court certified a question on the issue to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a debtor may claim an exemption for an HSA to the extent that it is “used or will be used to pay for the care” described in section 25-13-608(1)(f). View "In re John Charles Giacometto" on Justia Law

Nightingale provided home health care and received Medicare reimbursements. The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) visited Nightingale’s facility and concluded that Nightingale had deficiencies that placed patients in “immediate jeopardy.” ISDH recommended that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), terminate Nightingale’s Medicare agreement. ISDH conducted a revisit and concluded that Nightingale had not complied. Before CMS terminated the agreement, Nightingale filed a petition to reorganize in bankruptcy and commenced sought to enjoin CMS from terminating its provider agreement during the reorganization, to compel CMS to pay for services already provided, and to compel CMS to continue to reimburse for services rendered. The bankruptcy court granted Nightingale relief. While an appeal was pending, ISDH again found “immediate jeopardy.” The injunction was dissolved. A Medicare ALJ and the Departmental Appeals Board affirmed termination. After failing to complete a sale of its assets, Nightingale discharged patients and closed its Indiana operations by August 17, 2016. On September 16, 2016, the district court concluded that the bankruptcy court had lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the injunction and stated that the government could seek restitution for reimbursements for post-injunction services. CMS filed a claim for restitution that is pending. Nightingale separately initiated a civil rights action, which was dismissed. In consolidated appeals, the Seventh Circuit vacated the decisions. The issue of whether the bankruptcy court properly granted the injunction was moot. Nightingale’s constitutional claims were jurisdictionally barred by 42 U.S.C. 405(g). View "Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Section 707(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which allows a bankruptcy court to dismiss a petition filed under Chapter 7 if it determines that relief would be an "abuse" within the meaning of that section, applies to a petition that was initially filed under Chapter 13 but later converted to a petition under Chapter 7. The Eleventh Circuit explained that by excluding converted cases from section 707(b), the effect would be to read this important remedial provision out of the Code. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision to uphold the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the petition in this case. View "Pollitzer v. Gebhardt" on Justia Law

ConocoPhillips Co. and Alma Energy Corp. exchanged oil and gas interests under an exchange agreement in which each indemnified the other for any environmental claims related to the properties received. Alma later filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Thereafter, Noble Energy Inc. agreed to by the properties Alma had received from Conoco under the exchange agreement. After the bankruptcy proceeding concluded, an environmental contamination suit was filed against Conoco, and Noble refused to indemnify Conoco under the exchange agreement. Conoco filed suit against Noble alleging breach of the exchange agreement and seeking to recover the $63 million it paid to settle the suit. The trial court granted summary judgment for Noble. The court of appeals reversed and entered summary judgment for Conoco, concluding that the exchange agreement was an executory contract that was assumed by Alma and assigned to Noble in the bankruptcy proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the terms of the bankruptcy court order confirming the plan of reorganization and the agreement for sale of Alma’s assets, Noble was assigned an undisclosed contractual indemnity obligation of Alma. View "Noble Energy, Inc. v. Conocophillips Co." on Justia Law

Benjamin Ashmore appealed the district court's order dismissing him as the plaintiff in a whistleblower action under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. 1514A. Instead, the trustee of Ashmore's bankruptcy estate was substituted as plaintiff. The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's dismissal of the case as to Ashmore and the substitution of the trustee as plaintiff were interlocutory orders that were not immediately appealable. The court vacated the temporary stay of the district court proceedings and denied Ashmore's pending motion to stay as moot. View "Ashmore v. CGI Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Debtor owned nonresidential real estate that FNB sold in a pre-petition foreclosure sale. Before Debtor's bankruptcy filing, FNB obtained a deficiency judgment and filed two judicial liens. During her chapter 7 case, Debtor moved, under 11 U.S.C. 522(f)(1)(A), to avoid those liens as impairing Debtor’s Ohio homestead exemption in her residence. The bankruptcy court denied Debtor’s motion, ruling that section 522(f)(2)(C) specifically prohibits the avoidance of a deficiency judgment lien because it is a lien based on a judgment arising out of a mortgage foreclosure. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed, finding that section 522(f)(2)(C) is not ambiguous, so reference to either state law or legislative history is not required to interpret it. Section 522(f)(2)(C) does not preclude avoidance of mortgage deficiency judgment liens but “clarifi[es] that the entry of a foreclosure judgment does not convert the underlying consensual mortgage into a judicial lien which may be avoided.” The court noted that most courts hold that mortgage deficiency liens are not "judgments [that] aris[e] out of a mortgage foreclosure" and are therefore avoidable. View "In re: Pace" on Justia Law

Reid founded Capitol, which owned commmunity banks, and served as its chairman and CEO. His daughter and her husband served as president and general counsel. Capitol accepted Federal Reserve oversight in 2009. In 2012, Capitol sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization and became a “debtor in possession.” In 2013, Capitol decided to liquidate and submitted proposals that released its executives from liability. The creditors’ committee objected and unsuccessfully sought derivative standing to sue the Reids for breach of their fiduciary duties. The Reids and the creditors continued negotiation. In 2014, they agreed to a liquidation plan that required Capitol to assign its legal claims to a Liquidating Trust; the Reids would have no liability for any conduct after the bankruptcy filing and their pre-petition liability was limited to insurance recovery. Capitol had a management liability insurance policy, purchased about a year before it filed the bankruptcy petition. The liquidation plan required the Reids to sue the insurer if it denied coverage. The policy excluded from coverage “any claim made against an Insured . . . by, on behalf of, or in the name or right of, the Company or any Insured,” except for derivative suits by independent shareholders and employment claims (insured-versus-insured exclusion). The Liquidation Trustee sued the Reids for $18.8 million and notified the insurer. The Sixth Circuit affirmed a declaratory judgment that the insurer had no obligation with respect to the lawsuit, which fell within the insured-versus-insured exclusion. View "Indian Harbor Insurance Co. v. Zucker" on Justia Law