Bankruptcy Caselaw

January 29, 2025

California Court Discusses Automatic Stay Protections in Bankruptcy

In bankruptcy proceedings, the automatic stay and discharge injunction provides critical protections for debtors by preventing creditors from collecting on debts outside the bankruptcy process. These protections have limitations, however, particularly when a debtor’s assets have been exempted from the bankruptcy estate, as demonstrated in a recent California case. If you have debts you cannot pay, you may be eligible for bankruptcy relief, and you should talk to a California bankruptcy attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the debtors, a married couple, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2010 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. At the time of the filing, the debtor held an interest in a Delaware limited liability company. The debtors disclosed this interest in their bankruptcy schedules and claimed an exemption for its value under California law. The bankruptcy trustee did not object to the exemption, effectively removing the asset from the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court later granted the debtors a discharge, and the case was closed.

It is alleged that several years after the bankruptcy case was closed, the debtor became involved in litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery concerning his interest in the LLC. The litigation involved claims against a co-owner, including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. The LLC intervened in the case and filed counterclaims against the debtor, alleging conversion and tortious interference with contractual rights. The Delaware court ultimately ruled that, under Delaware law, the debtor’s membership interest in the LLC had been automatically terminated upon the bankruptcy filing, leaving him with only an economic interest in the company. The Delaware Supreme Court later affirmed this ruling. Continue reading

December 21, 2024

California Court Discusses the Impact of Bankruptcy Stays on Litigation

by Matthew D. Roy

In civil litigation involving defendants who file for bankruptcy, automatic stays under the Bankruptcy Code can complicate the proceedings. A recent California decision illustrates how courts handle the interplay between bankruptcy stays and ongoing civil cases. If you are navigating a case involving bankruptcy, it is crucial to consult a knowledgeable California bankruptcy attorney to assess your legal options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiffs, acting as successors in interest to the decedent, filed a wrongful death action in federal court against the defendant and other parties. Allegedly, the claims arose from the decedent’s death while in custody, which the plaintiffs attributed to negligence and deliberate indifference by the defendants. The first amended complaint sought damages for violations of constitutional rights, wrongful death, and medical malpractice.

Reportedly, in November 2024, the defendant filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. Shortly thereafter, the defendant filed a suggestion of bankruptcy and notice of stay, prompting the federal court in California to vacate a scheduling conference and consider the applicability of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The court initially directed the plaintiffs to file a status report within ten days of any modifications to the bankruptcy stay. Continue reading

September 26, 2024

California Court Discusses the Appointment of Counsel in Bankruptcy Cases

by Matthew D. Roy

While people have the right to be represented by an attorney in criminal cases, they rarely enjoy similar rights in civil cases. For example, in bankruptcy, debtors can seek the appointment of counsel, but their requests will only be granted in exceptional circumstances, as discussed in a recent California ruling. If you are overwhelmed with debt, you should meet with a California bankruptcy attorney to evaluate whether bankruptcy may be an option for you.

History of the Case

It is reported that the debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The court then granted a creditor relief from the automatic stay, which had been initiated when the debtor filed for bankruptcy. The debtor claimed that the creditor had wrongfully acquired the property at issue through fraud. The bankruptcy court also dismissed the debtor’s Chapter 13 case after the debtor failed to amend her debt adjustment plan as directed by the court. The court had ordered the debtor to omit a particular creditor from the plan, but the debtor failed to do so by the June 28, 2024, deadline, resulting in a dismissal of the case due to prejudicial delay. The debtor appealed both orders and moved for appointment of counsel in both matters.

Appointment of Counsel in Bankruptcy Cases

On appeal, the court reviewed both of the debtor’s motions for the appointment of counsel. It applied the standard for appointing counsel in civil cases, which requires a showing of “exceptional circumstances” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This involves evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and the debtor’s ability to articulate claims in light of the legal issues’ complexity. Continue reading

July 10, 2024

California Court Discusses Jurisdiction Over Appeals in Bankruptcy Actions

by Matthew D. Roy

People who carry substantial debts often have difficulty making payments. Fortunately, many people are eligible to seek debt relief via bankruptcy. Once a party files a bankruptcy action, creditors are automatically stayed from pursuing claims against them. In some instances, though, the courts will find cause to lift an automatic stay. If a court makes such a decision, the debtor can file an appeal, but the federal courts can only hear appeals in cases in which they have jurisdiction, as discussed in a recent California opinion issued in a bankruptcy action. If you have significant debt that you cannot pay, you may be eligible for bankruptcy relief, and it is prudent to speak with a California bankruptcy lawyer.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which resulted in an automatic stay preventing creditors from pursuing legal actions against him. The creditor, who owned the property rented by the debtor, filed a motion in bankruptcy court seeking relief from the automatic stay to proceed with an unlawful detainer action in state court. The bankruptcy court granted the creditor’s motion, allowing the state court eviction process to continue.

May 27, 2024

Court Discusses Double Recoveries Under the Bankruptcy Code

by Matthew D. Roy

In bankruptcy actions, creditors will often seek to recover some or all of the debts they are owed. While they have the right to do so, the Bankruptcy Code prohibits them from recovering the same debt twice. As discussed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a recent case, though, payments and transfers that may seem like double recovery often are not recoveries at all. If you have debt obligations you cannot meet, you may be eligible to file for bankruptcy, and you should speak to a California bankruptcy lawyer.

History of the Case

It is alleged that in February 2018, the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs for the sale of a warehouse in California for $8 million. The plaintiffs’ company, a California business, transferred a down payment of approximately $2.4 million, with the remaining amount financed through a loan secured by the warehouse. The title of the warehouse was transferred to a special purpose entity created by the plaintiffs. This transaction was later discovered to be part of an extensive Ponzi scheme.

Reportedly, in December 2018, federal authorities raided the plaintiffs’ business operations, uncovering substantial fraud, which led to the plaintiffs and several related entities filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The warehouse, owned by a non-debtor entity, was included in federal forfeiture actions against the plaintiffs’ properties. Despite an attempt by one trustee to enforce an automatic stay against the forfeiture, the sale of the warehouse proceeded, and the loan was repaid from the sale proceeds.

April 29, 2024

California Court Discusses Grounds for Vacating a Default Judgment in Bankruptcy Actions

by Matthew D. Roy

People with all-consuming debt will often seek financial relief by filing for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy can help many people regain control of their finances, but if they do not proceed carefully, they may incur additional debt. This was demonstrated in a recent California bankruptcy case in which the court sanctioned debtors for filing an inappropriate pleading. If you have debts you are unable to pay, it is wise to talk to a California bankruptcy lawyer about whether bankruptcy may be right for you.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the petitioner filed an adversary proceeding and was awarded a default judgment against the debtors by the Bankruptcy Court. Over a year later, the debtors filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking relief from the default judgment. Their motion was based on Rule 60(b)(4) (relief from a void judgment) and Rule 60(b)(1) (relief from judgment due to mistake).

Allegedly, in response, the petitioner moved for sanctions under. The Bankruptcy Court denied the debtors’ motion to vacate and granted the petitioner’s motion for sanctions. The Bankruptcy Appellant Panel affirmed the decision. The debtors, representing themselves, appealed.

December 23, 2023

California Court Explains the Approval of Sales and Settlements in Bankruptcy Actions

by Matthew D. Roy

In bankruptcy actions, trustees will often manage the estate, which may include selling any assets that can be liquidated. The bankruptcy courts will generally approve such sales, as long as they comply with the procedural requirements, as illustrated in a recent California ruling. If you have would like to hear more about whether you may be eligible for bankruptcy relief, it is wise to contact a California bankruptcy attorney.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the debtor’s husband and debtor wife, who were legally separated, filed separate petitions in September 2021, during their legal separation. Their bankruptcy cases were then consolidated. The trustee, who oversaw the consolidated bankruptcy estates, moved for the approval of two settlement and sale agreements. “Agreement A” encompassed the sale of a single business entity that was owned by the debtor husband and the settlement of three related legal matters the debtor husband, formerly legal counsel for the creditor, had been involved in. The trustee advocated for the approval of the settlement and sale, contending that they were in the estate’s best interest. The debtor husband objected to Agreement A however. The bankruptcy court ultimately approved the agreement, and debtor husband appealed.

Approval of Sales and Settlements in Bankruptcy Actions

On appeal, the court evaluated the bankruptcy court’s approval of Agreement A, encompassing both a sale and a compromise, under § 363 and Rule 9019. To approve a § 363(b)(1) sale, the trustee must establish a sound business purpose, fair sale price, proper notice to creditors, and good-faith negotiation. Rule 9019(a) allows the court to approve compromises or settlements, considering factors such as the probability of success, collection difficulties, litigation complexity, and creditor interests. The court may make general findings supporting the settlement if the record indicates favorability. The trustee bore the burden of proving these elements.

October 29, 2023

California Court Discusses Review of Proposed Compromises in Bankruptcy Cases

by Matthew D. Roy

In bankruptcy cases, it is not uncommon for the debtor and the trustee to propose a compromise to the bankruptcy court. The court will generally review a proposed compromise to determine if it is fair and equitable, in consideration of numerous factors, as discussed in a recent California case. If you need assistance with a bankruptcy matter, it is in your best interest to consult a California bankruptcy lawyer.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the bankruptcy court considered a proposed compromise between the debtor and the Chapter 7 trustee of a medical institute. The terms of the proposed compromise included the debtor subordinating his $1.35 million proof of claim in the medical institute’s bankruptcy to the allowed claims of all non-insiders.

Reportedly, his company would purchase the medical institute’s rights to pursue certain claims against two creditors for $200,000 in cash and a share of the potential net recovery on those claims. In return, the trustee agreed to settle all of the medical institute’s claims against the debtor and two of the debtor’s companies and withdraw the medical institute’s claim in the debtor’s bankruptcy with prejudice.

August 29, 2023

California Court Discusses Reference of Claims in Bankruptcy Matters

by Matthew D. Roy

Generally, the bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters and claims arising in bankruptcy actions. Certain bankruptcy-related actions and claims filed in bankruptcy courts are better handled by other courts, however; as such, in some instances, a bankruptcy court will refer a matter to a state or federal court. If a bankruptcy court refers a case to another court, the plaintiff has the option of moving to withdraw the reference, but proving the such motions should be granted can be challenging, as demonstrated in a recent California case. If you struggle to pay your debts and wonder if filing for bankruptcy is right for you, it is wise to talk to a California bankruptcy lawyer at your earliest opportunity.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions in bankruptcy court against the defendants, including claims under federal non-bankruptcy statutes. The bankruptcy court automatically referred the case to the district court. The plaintiff moved to withdraw the reference, seeking both mandatory and permissive withdrawal to have the district court decide the sanctions motion.

Reference of Claims in Bankruptcy Matters

The district court denied the motion to withdraw the reference. In doing so, it explained that the mandatory withdrawal provision should be interpreted narrowly rather than as an escape hatch allowing most bankruptcy matters to be removed to the district court. Withdrawal is only required when materially considering non-bankruptcy federal law. Courts have found withdrawal mandatory when non- bankruptcy issues necessitate interpreting, not just applying, non-bankruptcy law or undertaking analysis of major unsettled non-bankruptcy law questions. Under this approach, the party seeking withdrawal must show more than the possibility novel non-bankruptcy law issues could arise in the bankruptcy case.

April 27, 2023

Supreme Court Rules Debtors Are Liable for Partner’s Fraud in Bankruptcy Actions

by Matthew D. Roy

Generally, bankruptcy allows for the discharge of debts. There are some exceptions to the general rule, however. For example, any debt obtained via fraud or false representations is not dischargeable. While it is obvious that people could not discharge debts incurred due to their own fraud, it was not clear whether people could be deemed responsible for debts arising out of another party’s fraud if they were unaware of the fraudulent activity. The United States Supreme Court recently resolved the issue, though, holding that debtors cannot discharge debts brought about by fraud, regardless of whether it was their fraud or another individual’s deceitful acts. If you are interested in learning more about debt relief, it is wise to meet with a California bankruptcy lawyer to evaluate your options.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the debtors, a married couple, renovated a house in San Francisco and sold it to a buyer who later sued them after discovering defects. The buyer won the case and was awarded damages. The couple then filed for bankruptcy. During the bankruptcy proceedings, the buyer argued that the debt from his judgment against the debtors was not dischargeable because it was obtained through fraud.

Allegedly, the bankruptcy court agreed. The court found that the husband had knowledge of the factual misrepresentations. Further, it held that his fraudulent conduct could be imputed onto his wife due to their partnership. The debtors appealed, and the appellate court remanded the imputed liability finding back to the bankruptcy court, instructing them to determine whether the wife “knew or should have known” of the fraud. The court held that the wife did not know of the fraud and thus was not liable for her husband’s fraudulent conduct. The appellate court affirmed, but the buyer appealed.