Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Puerto Rico may not authorize its municipalities, including public utilities, to seek federal bankruptcy relief under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In 2014, the Commonwealth attempted to allow its utilities, which were at risk of becoming insolvent, to restructure their debt by enacting its own municipal bankruptcy law, the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act (Recovery Act). Plaintiffs, investors who collectively held nearly two billion dollars of bonds issued by one of the distressed utilities, brought suit to challenge the Recovery Act’s validity and to enjoin its implementation. The district court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and permanently enjoined the Recovery Act on the ground that it was preempted under 11 U.S.C. 903(1), which ensures the uniformity of federal bankruptcy laws by prohibiting state municipal debt restructuring laws that bind creditors without their consent. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that section 903(1) preempts the Recovery Act, as the statute does not read that Puerto Rico is outside the reach of its prohibitions and the Recovery Act would frustrate the precise purpose underlying the enactment of section 903(1). View "Franklin California Tax-Free v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

Sauer Incorporated alleged that Carrie Lawson incurred a debt by knowingly receiving a fraudulent conveyance from her father that was designed to prevent Sauer from collecting a judgment against him. After Lawson filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy Sauer initiated this adversary proceeding objecting to the discharge of this debt under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A) as being for money “obtained by…actual fraud.” The bankruptcy court dismissed Sauer’s adversary proceeding, determining that because Sauer could not allege that Lawson had made a misrepresentation, Sauer could not establish that section 523(a)(2)(A) barred discharge of Lawson’s debt. The First Circuit vacated the bankruptcy court’s grant of Lawson’s motion to dismiss, holding that a debt that is not dischargeable in Chapter 13 bankruptcy as a debt for money or property “obtained by…actual fraud” extends beyond debts incurred through fraudulent misrepresentations to also include debts incurred as a result of knowingly accepting a fraudulent conveyance that the transferee knew was intended to hinder the transferor’s creditors. View "Sauer Inc. v. Lawson" on Justia Law

Debtor filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court appointed a Trustee and confirmed Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan, which contained a tax return production requirement. When the Trustee received neither a copy of Debtor’s tax return under the tax return production requirement nor a request for an extension, the Trustee filed a motion alerting the bankruptcy court to Debtor’s failure to comply with the tax return production requirement. When Debtor belatedly furnished Trustee with a copy the extension request, the bankruptcy court imposed a $100 sanction on Debtor. The district court upheld the sanction. the First Circuit rejected Debtor’s challenge to the sanction, holding that the district court did not err in upholding it. View "Charbono v. Sumski" on Justia Law

The four debtors involved in these bankruptcy appeals all failed to timely file their Massachusetts income tax returns and failed to pay their taxes. Each debtor eventually filed his late tax returns but still failed to pay the taxes that were due. Each debtor eventually filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and sought a ruling that their obligation to pay the unpaid taxes was dischargeable. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue argued that unpaid taxes for which no return was timely filed by the Commonwealth’s statutory deadline fit within an exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. 532(a)(1)(B)(i). The bankruptcy courts split three to one in favor of the debtors. In the two cases appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), the BAP sided with the debtors. In the two cases appealed to the district court, the court granted summary judgment to the Department. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the Department and reversed the BAP’s grant of judgment for the debtors, holding that a Massachusetts state income tax return filed after the date by which Massachusetts requires such returns to be filed does not constitute a “return” under 11 U.S.C. 523(a) such that unpaid taxes due under the return can be discharged in bankruptcy. View "Fahey v. Mass. Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law

T&N Limited (T&N), an asbestos manufacturer, chose to address the liability it faced after the deadly qualities of asbestos were discovered through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan (the Plan). Then Plan transferred to a Trust certain of T&N’s assets and rights, with which the Trust was to pay asbestos claims brought by persons who could have sued T&N but for T&N's bankruptcy. The Plan provided that T&N’s asbestos liability would continue after plan confirmation and that the Trust would bring asbestos suits against T&N as the agent of the actual claimants. In this lawsuit, the Trust brought an asbestos claim that had accrued a decade earlier. The district court dismissed the Trust’s suit on statute of limitations grounds, thus rejecting the Trust’s argument that it was allowed to bring asbestos claims that had not become stale prior to T&N’s filing for bankruptcy protection whenever it wished to do so. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the Trust’s argument failed because the Plan unambiguously terminated the automatic stay and contained no provision that provided for any further tolling of the limitations period beyond that granted by the Bankruptcy Code. View "Barraford v. T&N Ltd." on Justia Law

Appellant sued Appellees in Massachusetts state court, asserting claims for, inter alia, embezzlement and fraud. Appellees subsequently filed for bankruptcy, and the state court stayed Appellant’s action. The bankruptcy court granted Appellees a discharge. Appellant challenged two orders issued by the bankruptcy court after it granted the discharge. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order on Appellant’s “motion to affirm,” which requested the bankruptcy court to rule that the discharge it granted Appellees had no effect on Appellant’s right to pursue his claims against Appellees against them in state court, and affirmed the bankruptcy court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion to affirm. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court did not err in its rulings in its order on Appellant’s motion to affirm or in denying Appellant’s motion for reconsideration.View "Moushigian v. Marderosian" on Justia Law

Pinpoint and Atlas filed federal court actions against each other based on a 2009 contract between them. Two months after answering and counterclaiming Pinpoint in the Virginia action, Atlas filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Atlas's filing automatically stayed the Virginia and Puerto Rico actions. At issue was Pinpoint's appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's judgment dismissing Pinpoint's challenge to the bankruptcy court's no-stay-relief order. The court rejected the blanket-rule approach and, like the Third Circuit, held that it was possible that in some cases an order denying stay relief may lack finality. Because the order denying stay relief in this case was not final, the court dismissed Pinpoint's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.View "Pinpoint IT Services, LLC v. Atlas IT Export, Corp." on Justia Law

After an Attorney’s representation of the Debtor in this current action ended, the Debtor was left owing the Attorney $62,000. The Debtor later filed petition for bankruptcy protection and listed the amount owing to the attorney among her scheduled debts. The Attorney filed an adversary proceeding asserting that the debt was nondischargeable because it had been incurred through false pretenses and a false representation. The bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding, concluding that the Attorney had not carried her burden of proving her claims. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel upheld the dismissal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court did not err in determining that the Attorney failed to carry her burden of proving that the debt was nondischargeable.View "deBenedictis v. Brady-Zell" on Justia Law

John Zullo paid David Lombardo to perform work in Zullo’s house. Lombardo, however, had misrepresented his credentials, and Zullo incurred additional expense to have the inadequate work fixed. Zullo subsequently obtained a Massachusetts state court judgment against Lombardo, which Lombardo never paid. After Lombardo later filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, Zullo began an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court, alleging that Lombardo’s debt to him was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 532(a)(6), which excepts from bankruptcy discharge “any debt…for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to…to the property of another entity.” The bankruptcy court ultimately granted summary judgment for Lombardo on the 11 U.S.C. 532(a)(6) claim, and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. At issue before the First Circuit was whether the bankruptcy court erred in denying Zullo’s request for leave to amend his complaint. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zullo’s request where Zullo provided no explanation for the seventeen-month delay between filing his complaint and seeking leave to amend. View "Zullo v. Lombardo" on Justia Law

In 2005, Debtor secured a loan with a mortgage on her home and stayed current on all mortgage payments on the property. Debtor’s bank, however, failed to record the mortgage with the appropriate registry. In 2011, Debtor filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Although Debtor’s home was subject to a homestead exemption, the Trustee of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate sought to sell the home as property of the bankruptcy estate. Accordingly, Trustee filed a complaint to avoid the unrecorded mortgage and to preserve it for the benefit of the estate. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment for the Trustee, and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the Trustee’s lien avoidance and preservation powers did not justify him in selling Debtor’s home as property of the bankruptcy estate. View "Degiacomo v. Traverse" on Justia Law