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

Plaintiff Tutor Perini Building Corp. appealed from the district court’s order affirming an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court, which held that Plaintiff may not use 11 U.S.C. Section 365(b)(1)(A) to assert a “cure claim” against the Trustee for the Trustee’s assumption of an unexpired lease to which Plaintiff was neither a party nor a third-party beneficiary.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that a creditor who seeks to assert a “cure claim” under Section 365(b)(1)(A) must have a contractual right to payment under the assumed executory contract or unexpired lease in question, and the court agreed that Plaintiff is not a third-party beneficiary of the assumed lease. The court explained that Tutor Perini’s expansive view of the priority rights conferred by 11 U.S.C. Section 365(b)(1)(A) is inconsistent with applicable principles of Bankruptcy Code interpretation, and its third-party beneficiary argument is inconsistent with controlling principles of New York contract law. View "In re: George Washington Bridge" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that private educational loan was discharged in bankruptcy. He sued Experian under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for reporting the loan was due and owing. The district court concluded the loan was not discharged in bankruptcy and later declined to set aside summary judgment when Plaintiff proffered newly discovered evidence.   The Second Circuit held that the kind of legal inaccuracy alleged by Plaintiff is not cognizable as an “inaccuracy” under the FCRA, thus the court affirmed, on an alternative ground, the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Experian. Accordingly, the court dismissed as moot Plaintiff’s appeal of the denial of his motion for an indicative judgment. The court explained that Plaintiff has failed to allege an inaccuracy within the plain meaning of section 1681e(b) of the FCRA. The unresolved legal question regarding the application of section 523(a)(8)(A)(i) to Plaintiff’s educational loan renders his claim non-cognizable under the FCRA. The court noted that the holding does not mean that credit reporting agencies are never required by the FCRA to accurately report information derived from the readily verifiable and straightforward application of law to facts. However, the inaccuracy that Plaintiff alleged does not meet this statutory test because it evades objective verification. There is no bankruptcy order explicitly discharging this debt. View "Mader v. Experian" on Justia Law

The TLA Claimholders, who assert unsecured claims against Tam Linhas Aéreas S.A. (“TLA”), an affiliate of LATAM Airlines Group S.A. (“LATAM”), a large South American airline holding company, appealed from an order of the district court, affirming a June 18, 2022 order of the United States Bankruptcy Court confirming LATAM’s reorganization plan. The plan of reorganization provides that the Appellants’ claims will be paid in full, except for any post-petition interest. The Bankruptcy Court determined that such treatment rendered the claims unimpaired under Section 1124(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, because Section 502(b)(2) of the Code provides that “unmatured interest” may be excluded from a claim. It also determined that the affiliate, TLA, was insolvent, so that the solvent-debtor exception—an equitable doctrine permitting the payment of post-petition interest by a solvent debtor in limited circumstances—did not apply. On appeal, the TLA Claimholders contend that, unless they receive post-petition interest, their claims are “impaired” under Section 8 1124(1). They also argue that TLA is solvent and that its solvency makes the solvent debtor exception applicable. They further contended that the Bankruptcy Court’s test for assessing solvency was legally flawed.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that 1) a claim is not impaired under 11 U.S.C. Section 1124(1) when it is altered by operation of the Bankruptcy Code, and (2) the Bankruptcy Court did not err in its assessment of TLA’s solvency. The district court did not abuse that discretion in determining that the Debtors’ analyses and the corrected Waterfall Analysis were more probative on the question of TLA’s solvency than the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis. View "In re LATAM Airlines Group S.A." on Justia Law

In 2017, Congress passed an amendment to the statute setting forth quarterly fees in bankruptcy cases, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1930. The 2017 Amendment increased quarterly fees in judicial districts in which the United States Trustee Program oversees bankruptcy administration.Debtors challenged the Bankruptcy Court's ruling rejecting their constitutional challenge to quarterly fees imposed during the pendency of their bankruptcy proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court rejected Debtors’ argument that the 2017 Amendment violated the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause of the United States Constitution.The Second Circuit reversed, finding the 2017 Amendment is a bankruptcy law subject to the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause. The court also held that, under the version of Sec. 1930 in effect prior to the 2020 Act, the 2017 Amendment violated the uniformity requirement. View "In re Clinton Nurseries" on Justia Law

The Sears Holdings Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors” or “Sears”) carried approximately $2.68 billion of first- and second-lien secured debt at the time of its bankruptcy petition. The holders of the second-lien debt alleged that they were paid less than the value of the collateral that secured their claims. To recoup the difference, the second-lien holders sought relief under section 507(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, arguing that the value of their collateral decreased during the course of the bankruptcy proceeding, which entitled them to priority payment of the difference. The bankruptcy court disagreed, finding that the value of the second-lien holders’ collateral had not decreased since the date the Debtors filed for bankruptcy and that, in fact, the second-lien holders had received more than the value of their collateral.   On appeal, the second-lien holders raise a number of objections to the bankruptcy court’s valuation methodology, as well as to its valuation of several specific categories of collateral. The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the bankruptcy court committed no legal or factual error in its decision to value the collateral based on NOLV. The bankruptcy court reasonably concluded that the second-lien holders failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the NBB’s value, and therefore did not err by valuing the NBB at zero. Similarly, the bankruptcy court did not err by deducting their full face value from the value of the collateral. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court did not commit clear error by denying the second-lien holders’ section 507(b) claims. View "In re Sears Holdings Corp." on Justia Law

Defendants JABA Associates LP and its general partners appealed the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to Plaintiff, (“Trustee”), pursuant to the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”). JABA was a good faith customer of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”) and held BLMIS Account Number 1EM357 (the “JABA Account”). The Trustee brought this action to recover the allegedly fictitious profits transferred from BLMIS to Defendants in the two years prior to BLMIS’s filing for bankruptcy. The district court granted recovery of $2,925,000 that BLMIS transferred to Defendants in the two years prior to BLMIS’s filing for bankruptcy, which made it recoverable property under SIPA.Defendants appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The Second Appellate District affirmed reasoning that because is no genuine dispute of material fact that Bernard L. Madoff transferred the assets of his business to Defendants, which made it recoverable property under SIPA, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Plaintiff. The court reasoned that here Here, Defendants argue that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize an award of prejudgment interest because the statute is silent. Yet Defendants do not make any argument that this silence is dispositive. Further, the court wrote that prejudgment interest has been awarded against other similarly situated defendants in related SIPA litigation. Thus, the district court appropriately balanced the equities between the parties. Given this, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an award of 4 percent prejudgment interest to the Trustee. View "In re: Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from a judgment of the district court affirming an order of the bankruptcy court denying the Appellant’s statutory discharge under 11 U.S.C. Section 727(a)(2). Appellant argued that the bankruptcy court erred by finding that he had an interest in Soroban, Inc., that was concealed to hinder creditors, and, in the alternative, that denying discharge was improper because the concealment began prior to the statutory one-year period set forth in Section 727(a)(2)(A).   The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that Appellant had a valid interest in Soroban that was concealed to hinder creditors, and properly denied the discharge because the acts of concealment continued throughout the one-year period prior to his filing the bankruptcy petition. The court explained that the record evidence fully supports the bankruptcy court’s findings that Appellant concealed his interest in Soroban, and that the concealment was done with an intent to hinder his creditors. View "Gasson v. Premier Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellee held a 99% interest in 72 Grandview LLC, which in turn owned a residential property that Appellee occupied as her primary residence. Appellant Bayview Loan Servicing LLC  (“Bayview”) initiated a foreclosure action in which both 72 Grandview LLC and Appellee were named as defendants. After Bayview obtained a judgment that authorized it to proceed with a foreclosure sale, Appellee a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and notified Bayview that, in her view, proceeding with the foreclosure sale would violate the automatic stay that took effect when she filed her bankruptcy petition. Nonetheless, Bayview proceeded with the foreclosure sale without relief from the automatic stay from the bankruptcy court.   Appellee then sought sanctions against Bayview, arguing that Bayview willfully violated the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court denied Appellee’s motion, but the district court reversed that decision and remanded for the calculation of fees and other damages that would be charged as sanctions.   Bayview appealed and the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The court held that two of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provisions, 11 U.S.C. Sections 362(a)(1) and (a)(2), are violated by an entity that proceeds with the foreclosure sale of a property when the debtor is a named party in the foreclosure proceedings, even if the debtor holds only a possessory interest in the property. Bayview willfully violated the automatic stay when it proceeded with the foreclosure sale while knowing that Appellee had filed a bankruptcy petition. View "In re: Eileen Fogarty" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs owned a home in Ontario County, New York. Following foreclosure, the couple filed for protection under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and filed a complaint seeking to avoid the loss of their home on the grounds that it was a fraudulent conveyance. The Bankruptcy Court set aside the transfer, and the County appealed, raising two questions. The first is whether the Plaintiffs had standing to bring the avoidance proceeding. The second is whether the transfer effected by Ontario County in foreclosing on the lien was entitled to the presumption of having yielded “reasonably equivalent value” under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment finding that the district court correctly held that the transfer of Plaintiffs’ home to the County was not entitled to the presumption of having provided “reasonably equivalent value” under Section 548.   The court explained that the County incorrectly interprets Section 522(c)(2)(B) as barring Plaintiffs from claiming the federal homestead exemption when it merely provides that exempt property remains liable for a tax lien. They are not attempting to avoid paying the tax lien; they are attempting to avoid a transfer of the property. Accordingly, Section 522(c)(2)(B) does not deprive the Plaintiffs of standing under Section 522(h).   The court further wrote that the County’s position would produce results that are fundamentally at odds with the goals of bankruptcy law. Here, it would give the County a windfall at the expense of the estate, the other creditors, and the debtor which is precisely what the Code’s fraudulent conveyance provisions are intended to prevent. View "Gunsalus v. County of Ontario" on Justia Law

Appellant, a law firm, challenged the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of the firm’s request for appellate attorneys’ fees. The bankruptcy court determined that it lacked the authority to award appellate attorneys’ fees, and the district court agreed.The Second Circuit vacated the order of the district court with instructions to remand to the bankruptcy court to consider whether appellate fees ought to be awarded. The court held that a bankruptcy court’s traditional power to impose contempt sanctions carries with it the authority to award damages and attorneys’ fees – including appellate attorneys’ fees. The court reasoned that it is well settled that a bankruptcy court may compensate a debtor for a creditor’s violation of its discharge order. Further, the failure to compensate the victim of contempt with appellate fees could leave the victim worse off for seeking to enforce a discharge order and would, at the very least, discount any compensatory damages award. Thus, the court found that the bankruptcy court’s denial of Appellant’s request for appellate fees was based on an erroneous view of the law and was, therefore, an abuse of discretion. View "In re: DiBattista" on Justia Law