A bankruptcy court's statutory contempt order issued for a violation of the automatic stay, and that denies compensatory and injunctive damages but incorporates a subsequent award of fees later agreed upon by the parties, is not final for purposes of appeal until the fee order issues.
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Bankruptcy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bankruptcy. Show all posts
Sixth Circuit: In re: Cal. Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc.
Shifting the bankruptcy proceeding to another statutory title for purposes of liquidation finalized the rights of the parties with significant and irreparable consequences, so the order is sufficiently final for purposes of appeal.
Court did not abuse its discretion in moving to liquidation, despite the possibility that the order would diminish the party's ability to recover funds in pending lawsuits, given concerns about the management of the estate.
Party insufficiently prejudiced by two-day violation of notice requirement. Lack of counsel at hearing not prejudicial, as there was no objection to withdrawal or request for continuance.
Third Circuit: Insurance Co of the State of Pennsylvania v. Alfred T. Giuliano
The suretyship for the construction contract was not discharged at tender letter, occupancy, or final completion nof the structure, but by the final payments to the completion contractor; the obligee therefore held the superior interest to the assets of the defaulting party, and could waive its claim to the defaulting party's tax refund.
Settlement order explicitly referencing the tax refund and holding that nothing in the settlement could limit any interest of the surety in the refund preserved no interest, as the suretyship had not acquired its priority interest prior to the settlement agreement.
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203057p.pdf
First Circuit: Sundaram v. Briry, LLC
Disbursements by the trustee of assets of the estate prior to the confirmation of the plan and prior to the dismissal of the bankruptcy case cannot be revisited in a subsequent Article III challenge. Since the claim attempts to revisit the organization of the estate, the claim is now moot, and statutes and common law rules allowing challenges to erroneous disbursements require that the funds be in the possession of the trustee at the time that the bankruptcy case is dismissed.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-9008P-01A.pdf
Third Circuit: In re: Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.
Under the Code, sufficient mutuality for offset of pre-petition monies mutually owed cannot be created by contract in a triangular offset; the claim on the funds is a personal one, and one tied to the identity of the claimant.
The second party also can't transform the contract into a claim.
(Perhaps. We don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent and Bankruptcy. Entertainment value only, folks.)
Third Circuit: In re: Energy Future Holdings Corp.
Post-petition missed merger states a subsequent claim by the missed bidder for administrative expenses under the Code, despite the fact that the missed bidder filed multiple post-attempt judicial challenges, forcing the estate initially to pay the agreed penalty for the missed transaction.
Benefit to the estate should be considered broadly, and the missed bidder's due diligence in setting up the deal, clarifying the issues and setting a roadmap for the subsequent lesser bid plausibly conferred sufficient benefit on the estate to justify statutory priority for the administrative expenses claim. Finder of fact will need to determine if this benefit was offset by the costs that were forced by prolonging the missed deal.
Eleventh Circuit: Charles K. Breland, Jr. v. USA, et al.
Bankruptcy court's removal of the debtor-in-possession in favor of a trustee prompted a loss of authority over the estate that constituted sufficient injury for Article III standing to challenge the removal.
Second Circuit: Tingling v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp.
Docketing of hand-written documentation of pretrial conference report and stipulations prior to its being typed up meant that revisions other than the typing would require the modification of the order into which the report and stipulations were incorporated.
Plaintiff did not make sufficient showing of undue hardship to justify discharge of the statutorily protected debt.
Fifth Circuit: Edwards Family Partnership, et al v. Johnson, et al
Under the bankruptcy statute, the Trustee's interest in litigation relating to the estate is not pecuniary, but rather the obligation to administer the estate, and is therefore not extinguished by an agreement between rival claimants.
The reasonableness of litigation expenses is determined by asking whether it was an abuse of discretion at the time of the expense, not by an after the fact determination of the merits of the claim.
Second Circuit: Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America N.A.
[If I have this right...] Investment bank's payments to noteholders of SPV on the occasion of its pre-petition default can't be recouped in bankruptcy, as the relationship between the bank and the SPV was of the type of asset-exchange swap obligation explicitly immunized from bankruptcy's modification of contractual rights and obligations.
Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America N.A.
Second Circuit: In Re: 21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc.
Bankruptcy court appropriately limited employee's claim for bonuses due, as although the triggering event for the bonus had been achieved, under normal conditions, employment would have had to continue for five years beyond the event, and present obligations to the employee were only accelerated by the filing of the petition, making the acceleration of the claim the true triggering event.
Sixth Circuit: In re Franklin Harris, Jr.
Bankruptcy court correctly dismissed post-stay adversary suit on grounds of abstention, as the state court adverse possession claim underlying the adversary proceeding was better addressed in state court, the res wasn't part of the estate, and the plaintiffs in the state court proceeding were not involved in the bankruptcy case.
Third Circuit: In re. Energy Future Holdings
Bankruptcy court's order was an interlocutory one, as the court retained jurisdiction over the order and the case itself -- no clear error in court's decision that it had clearly erred earlier and the court's granting of a motion to amend filed under the inherent authority of the court.
Dissent: Nullifying an order without a clear error of fact or law undercuts commercial reliance.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/181109p.pdf
Dissent: Nullifying an order without a clear error of fact or law undercuts commercial reliance.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/181109p.pdf
Third Circuit: In re: Tribune Media Company
Bankruptcy Court had statutory jurisdiction to resolve discrimination claims against debtor as a matter of law, as plaintiff consented to jurisdiction, and the statutory carve-out that would usually move personal-injury tort claims to the District Court is not a jurisdictional provision.
Implicit consent to jurisdiction suffices for a Bankruptcy Court to resolve the claim; by filing and seeking judgment from the court, Plaintiff consented to jurisdiction as to constitutional concerns. Constitutional challenges to the court's jurisdiction might have been lodged during the proceedings or in a motion challenging the denial of claim, making the present challenge untimely.
As plaintiff received notice and opportunity to be heard, there were no Due Process violations inherent in the Bankruptcy forum; consent to forum waived the jury trial right; challenge to local counsel rule waived for not being raised below.
Post-discharge, a tort liability claim that was incorporated in the bankruptcy settlement cannot be transferred or remanded.
Given absence of incidents in employee's file, employer not liable for racial animus under respondeat superior.
Employee's termination for fighting during the incident of alleged racial animus had a sufficiently non-discriminatory rationale.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172449p.pdf
Implicit consent to jurisdiction suffices for a Bankruptcy Court to resolve the claim; by filing and seeking judgment from the court, Plaintiff consented to jurisdiction as to constitutional concerns. Constitutional challenges to the court's jurisdiction might have been lodged during the proceedings or in a motion challenging the denial of claim, making the present challenge untimely.
As plaintiff received notice and opportunity to be heard, there were no Due Process violations inherent in the Bankruptcy forum; consent to forum waived the jury trial right; challenge to local counsel rule waived for not being raised below.
Post-discharge, a tort liability claim that was incorporated in the bankruptcy settlement cannot be transferred or remanded.
Given absence of incidents in employee's file, employer not liable for racial animus under respondeat superior.
Employee's termination for fighting during the incident of alleged racial animus had a sufficiently non-discriminatory rationale.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172449p.pdf
Third Circuit: In re: Arctic Glacier International
Shareholders who acquired shares post-bankruptcy-confirmation are transferees who step into the shoes of the previous owners, and their post-confirmation claims based on FINRA and tort are therefore barred by the bankruptcy's release of claims.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172522p.pdf
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172522p.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Elliott Levin v. William Miller
Corporate officers had no obligation to counsel the board on the wisdom of not disbursing the tax refunds to the soon-to-fail banks, given the stated board policy of support for the banks.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-17/C:17-1775:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2203966:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-17/C:17-1775:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2203966:S:0
First Circuit: US v. Valdes-Ayala
Sufficient evidence for bankruptcy fraud, as the petitions filed were the bare minimum to get the clients released from jail.
Sufficient evidence for wire fraud, as Microsoft has no email servers in Puerto Rico.
Sufficient evidence for identity fraud, as victims testified that they didn't sign many of the documents.
No constructive amendment of indictment alleging defrauding of creditors using the court, as the court filings were identified as the fraudulent element, and the offense was the deception in the filings.
No plain error in not sending the full offense-specific jury instruction into the deliberations room; no plain error in omission of materiality from fraud instruction.
Authorized use of names and power of signature is without lawful authority when used unlawfully.
Plain error in use of superseded sentencing guidelines.
Bankruptcy court is a legitimate recipient of restitution order.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1002P-01A.pdf
Sufficient evidence for wire fraud, as Microsoft has no email servers in Puerto Rico.
Sufficient evidence for identity fraud, as victims testified that they didn't sign many of the documents.
No constructive amendment of indictment alleging defrauding of creditors using the court, as the court filings were identified as the fraudulent element, and the offense was the deception in the filings.
No plain error in not sending the full offense-specific jury instruction into the deliberations room; no plain error in omission of materiality from fraud instruction.
Authorized use of names and power of signature is without lawful authority when used unlawfully.
Plain error in use of superseded sentencing guidelines.
Bankruptcy court is a legitimate recipient of restitution order.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1002P-01A.pdf
Fifth Circuit: 21st Mortgage Corporation v. Kayla Glenn
As the statute directs that the value of the possessions retained by the debtor is the value that a retail merchant could derive from them, delivery and setup costs of a mobile home are not considered part of the value of the retained property.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-60533-CV0.pdf
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-60533-CV0.pdf
Third Circuit: W.R. Grace & Co. v.
Injunction channelling recoveries in asbestos bankruptcies applies to both named and un-named parties; the injunction does not pre-empt state workman's compensation laws by governing recoveries by workmans comp funds, as it doesn't modify rights or duties under the law.
Test of whether recoveries are governed by the injunction is whether the injury is wholly separate from the asbestos liability.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/171208p.pdf
Test of whether recoveries are governed by the injunction is whether the injury is wholly separate from the asbestos liability.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/171208p.pdf
Second Circuit: In re: Matthew N. Murray
Creditor seeking to initiate an involuntary bankruptcy must demonstrate prejudice from inadequacy of state legal remedies and that the petition serves the purposes of the Act.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/aa7d1353-0417-45d3-8cb2-69fbe6d60e55/2/doc/17-1272_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/aa7d1353-0417-45d3-8cb2-69fbe6d60e55/2/hilite/
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/aa7d1353-0417-45d3-8cb2-69fbe6d60e55/2/doc/17-1272_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/aa7d1353-0417-45d3-8cb2-69fbe6d60e55/2/hilite/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)