Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Little Hearts Marks Family II L.P. ("Little Hearts") was a member of 305 East 61st Street Group LLC, a company formed to purchase and convert a building into a condominium. 61 Prime LLC ("Prime") was the majority member and manager, and Jason D. Carter was the manager and sole member of Prime. In 2021, the company filed for bankruptcy and sold the building to another company created by Carter. The liquidation plan established a creditor trust with exclusive rights to pursue the debtor’s estate's causes of action. Little Hearts sued Prime and Carter for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, seeking damages for lost capital investment and rights under the Operating Agreement.The bankruptcy court dismissed all claims, ruling that they were derivative and belonged to the debtor’s estate, thus could only be asserted by the creditor trustee. The district court affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims, agreeing that these were derivative and could only be pursued by the creditor trustee. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, determining that these were direct claims belonging to Little Hearts and could proceed. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed as duplicative of the contract claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "In re 305 East 61st Street Group LLC" on Justia Law

Debtor-Appellant Avianca Holdings S.A. agreed to pay additional rental payments to Creditors-Appellees Burnham Sterling and Company LLC and Babcock & Brown Securities LLC under 20 aircraft leases. Avianca failed to make certain payments that were due more than 60 days after filing for bankruptcy but before the leases were assumed or rejected. The creditors moved to compel payment under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(5), which requires timely performance of obligations arising from or after 60 days post-bankruptcy filing under an unexpired lease of personal property until the lease is assumed or rejected.The bankruptcy court granted the creditors' motion, concluding that Avianca's obligation to pay arose when the payments came due under the lease terms. Avianca appealed, arguing that the obligation arose pre-petition when the leases were executed. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, agreeing that the obligations arose as the payments came due.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(5), a debtor's obligation to make payments arises when the payments come due according to the lease terms, not when the lease was executed. The court emphasized that the statutory language requires the debtor to perform obligations that originate from or after 60 days post-petition, aligning with the "billing date" approach rather than the "accrual" approach. The court also noted that this interpretation is consistent with the broader statutory scheme and bankruptcy policy, which aims to balance creditor protection with the debtor's ability to reorganize. View "In re Avianca Holdings S.A." on Justia Law

The case involves a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding where the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a settlement agreement among the trustee of the bankruptcy estate, the debtor, and other parties. The settlement released claims that appellants Richard and Marisa Stadtmauer had originally asserted in a New York state court action. The Stadtmauers alleged that the debtor, Mark Nordlicht, and others engaged in a scheme to conceal Nordlicht’s assets to avoid paying his debts. When Nordlicht filed for bankruptcy, the state court proceedings were stayed, and the trustee took possession of the Stadtmauers’ claims. The settlement included a $2.5 million payment to the estate by Nordlicht’s mother, Barbara Nordlicht, and provisions for indemnification and reimbursement of legal fees.The Stadtmauers objected to the settlement and appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. They argued that the state court had granted them valid liens on two of Nordlicht’s properties, giving them secured property rights. They contended that the trustee lacked the authority to settle their claims, that the settlement violated due process and bankruptcy principles, and that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in approving the settlement. The district court rejected these arguments and affirmed the approval of the settlement agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court. The court held that the trustee had the authority to settle the Stadtmauers’ claims because they were general claims that were property of the bankruptcy estate. The court also found that the settlement did not violate the principles of creditor priority as articulated in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. because the validity of the Stadtmauers’ liens was in bona fide dispute. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "In re Nordlicht" on Justia Law

Andrew Delaney, a lawyer acting pro se, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the Eastern District of New York, listing $1,110 in assets and $44,434 in liabilities. He later sought to dismiss his petition, arguing that he was not a debtor as defined by 11 U.S.C. § 109(a) and that venue was improper. The bankruptcy court denied his motion, stating that dismissal would not be in the interest of all parties, particularly his creditors, and that the trustee had made progress in achieving a modest settlement.Delaney appealed the bankruptcy court's denial to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The district court dismissed his appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, concluding that the denial of a motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is not a final order that can be appealed as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). The district court also treated Delaney's notice of appeal as a motion for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) and denied it.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and determined that it too lacked jurisdiction over Delaney’s appeal. The court held that the bankruptcy court's order denying Delaney's motion to dismiss was nonfinal because it did not finally dispose of any discrete disputes within the larger bankruptcy case. Consequently, the district court's dismissal of the appeal left significant further proceedings in the bankruptcy court. As a result, the Second Circuit dismissed Delaney’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Delaney v. Messer" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Windstream Holdings, Inc. ("Windstream"), a telecommunications provider that filed for Chapter 11 reorganization. During Windstream's bankruptcy, Charter Communications Inc. and Charter Communications Operating, LLC (collectively, "Charter"), a competitor, launched an advertising campaign targeting Windstream's customers. Windstream alleged that Charter's advertising campaign was an attempt to exercise control over Windstream's customer contracts and goodwill, thereby violating the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York agreed with Windstream, holding Charter in civil contempt for its actions and imposing sanctions against Charter. However, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reversed the bankruptcy court's decision, finding that a fair ground of doubt existed as to whether Charter violated the automatic stay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court found that while Windstream's customer contracts and goodwill were property of the estate, Charter's advertising campaign did not exercise control over those assets. The court concluded that there was a fair ground of doubt as to whether Charter's actions violated the automatic stay, and therefore, the district court did not err by refraining from holding Charter in civil contempt. View "In re: Windstream Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, Aquila Alpha LLC (Aquila) appealed against a judgment from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, affirming a bankruptcy court’s decision to deny Aquila’s motion to vacate a default judgment. The default judgment was obtained by Howard M. Ehrenberg, as the liquidating trustee of several debtors, and granted the debtors the ownership of a $23.7 million mortgage purchased by Aquila.Aquila argued that the default judgment should be vacated due to lack of personal jurisdiction and misapplication of the relevant Rule 60(b) factors. Aquila posited that it was improperly included in the First Amended Complaint without leave from the bankruptcy court and was not correctly served.However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The appellate court concurred with the district court that the bankruptcy court had personal jurisdiction over the parties and had correctly applied the Rule 60(b) factors to deny Aquila’s motion to vacate default.The appeals court ruled that Aquila was correctly added to the First Amended Complaint as of right pursuant to Rule 15(a). The court also concluded that Aquila was properly served. It was further determined that Aquila’s default was willful, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to set aside the default judgment. View "In re Orion HealthCorp, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants Marc Kirschner, as the Litigation Trustee for the Nine West Litigation Trust representing unsecured creditors, and Wilmington Savings Fund, FSB, as successor Indenture Trustee for various notes issued by Nine West (together, the "Trustees"), brought seventeen actions in different states against Jones Group's former directors and officers for unjust enrichment and against its former public shareholders for fraudulent conveyance. Both the public shareholders and the directors and officers moved to dismiss the claims against them, arguing that payments made to them in connection with the merger are shielded by the Bankruptcy Code's Section 546(e) safe harbor. The district court granted both motions to dismiss, holding that the payments were shielded by the safe harbor. Plaintiffs appealed.   The Second Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court explained that Congress enacted Section 546(e) safe harbor to promote finality and certainty for investors by limiting the circumstances under which securities transactions could be unwound by, for example, a successful fraudulent conveyance action. The court wrote that to further expand the scope of Section 546(e) and Section 101(22)(A) and immunize transactions in which a bank took only purely ministerial action, made no payments, and had no discretion would not further Congress's purpose. Accordingly,  the court vacated the district court's judgment to the extent it dismissed the Payroll Transfer claims. View "In re: Nine West LBO Sec. Litig." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, in his capacity as Litigation Administrator of the post-confirmation estates (the “Litigation Administrator”) of Post-Confirmation Debtor Décor Holdings, Inc. (“Décor Holdings”), appeals the district court’s order, vacating the bankruptcy court’s entry of default judgment against Defendant Sumec Textile Company Limited (“Sumec”) and remanding the case for further proceedings. The district court’s order re-opened an adversary proceeding that the Litigation Administrator initiated against Sumec to avoid preferential payments of $694,048.84 that Décor Holdings and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “debtors”) made to Sumec in the ninety-day period before it filed for bankruptcy.   The Second Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that notwithstanding the Litigation Administrator’s practical concerns regarding his ability to effectuate service on Sumec and ultimately collect on any judgment, the court sees no basis to apply the collateral order doctrine to hear an appeal challenging the vacatur of a default judgment which can be reviewed, if necessary, upon the entry of a final judgment in the adversary proceeding. Further, the court explained that this is not a situation where the only remaining questions involve relief and enforcement of the holding; rather, the adversary proceeding is at its infancy, with issues of service of process and the actual merits of the action (assuming service is effectuated) still to be resolved on remand. Thus, the dicta in Stone regarding the general rules of appealability has no application to the circumstances in this appeal. View "In re: Décor Holdings, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. In her bankruptcy schedules, Plaintiff disclosed that she was the beneficiary of an annuity and claimed the annuity as exempt from the bankruptcy estate. The County failed to object to the claimed exemption within the timeframe prescribed by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4003(b). Plaintiff filed an adversary proceeding against the County seeking to avoid the tax foreclosure as a constructively fraudulent conveyance under 11 U.S.C. Section 548. The Bankruptcy Court held that the foreclosure amounted to a constructively fraudulent transfer of property, and it avoided the transfer. The district court affirmed. The County argues that it was not subject to the deadline prescribed by Rule 4003(b).   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Court correctly applied Rule 4003(b). The court also found no error in the Bankruptcy Court’s choice of remedy. The court explained the Bankruptcy Code permits a trustee to avoid a transfer that occurred within two years of the filing of a bankruptcy petition. Here, because the Property was transferred within two years of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy petition, that transfer may be avoided if Plaintiff did not receive reasonably equivalent value for it and was insolvent on the date of transfer or rendered insolvent by the transfer on March 7, 2017. The Bankruptcy Court was compelled to exclude from its calculation of Plaintiff’s assets “property that may be exempted from property of the estate under section 522.” The plain text of the Code thus contemplates that insolvency is determined based on the debts and properties of and exemptions from the bankruptcy estate. View "DuVall v. County of Ontario" on Justia Law

Appellant, an attorney, represented debtor in proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court. After Appellant failed to comply with a series of discovery orders, the bankruptcy court imposed sanctions of $55,000 for 55 days of non-compliance and $36,600 in attorneys' fees. The orders were affirmed by the district court. Appellant appealed, arguing that, first, the bankruptcy court lacked inherent authority to issue civil contempt sanctions, and second, as a matter of due process, he was not provided with sufficient notice of the basis for the sanctions imposed against him.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the civil contempt sanctions imposed against Appellant were within the scope of the bankruptcy court's discretion and that he had ample notice of the basis and reasons for the imposition of sanctions. The court explained that it appears that Appellant could not have been sanctioned under any express authority; the bankruptcy court was right to consider its inherent contempt authority. Nor was the bankruptcy court's exercise of its inherent contempt authority contrary to any provision of the Bankruptcy Code, including Section 105(a). Further, the court reasoned that the bankruptcy court found all the necessary elements -- that is, a finding of bad faith and satisfaction of the King factors -- to order contempt sanctions in the circumstances here, where Appellant was acting as an advocate. View "In re: Larisa Ivanovna Markus" on Justia Law