Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case concerns the founder and sole shareholder of a corporation (VPX), who elected to treat the company as a Subchapter S Corporation for federal tax purposes. After VPX and affiliated entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a reconstituted board removed the founder from his executive and board positions, though he remained the sole shareholder. The company’s assets were later sold, and its remaining interests were vested in a trust under the reorganization plan. The founder then sought confirmation that the bankruptcy automatic stay did not prohibit him from revoking the corporation’s Subchapter S status or, alternatively, for relief from the stay to do so.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida denied his motions, holding that the Subchapter S election constituted property of the bankruptcy estate and was therefore protected by the automatic stay. The founder appealed this decision to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which denied the trustee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, consolidated the appeals, and certified a direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed several issues, including mootness, the law of the case, and whether Subchapter S status is property of the bankruptcy estate. The court held that a corporate debtor’s Subchapter S election is not property of the bankruptcy estate because the election belongs to the shareholder, not the corporation. The court found the appeal neither constitutionally nor equitably moot, determined that procedural hurdles were met, and reversed the bankruptcy court’s denial of the founder’s motions. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion. View "Owoc v. The Liquidating Trustee on Behalf of the Liquidating Trust" on Justia Law

A company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which was later converted to Chapter 7. The trustee identified multiple parcels of real property that had been transferred to affiliated entities for no consideration, claiming these transfers were fraudulent. The parties settled, and it was agreed that the properties would be treated as assets of the bankruptcy estate and sold free and clear of liens, claims, and interests. The Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement and sale, ordering that any claims against the sale proceeds must be filed within thirty days. Cloud 9 Properties, LLC filed three claims related to the properties, attaching mortgage documents but initially lacking promissory notes. After an objection was raised due to insufficient evidence of debt owed to Cloud 9, Cloud 9 submitted the notes, but they showed the debts were actually owed to other entities at the relevant time.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment for the objector, INXS VII, LLC, disallowing all of Cloud 9’s claims because Cloud 9 did not own the notes at the time the claims were filed. The District Court for the Middle District of Florida affirmed this decision, holding that only a party with an enforceable right to payment at the time of filing could assert a valid claim in bankruptcy. Bay United Holdings, LLC, which had been assigned Cloud 9’s claims, appealed, arguing that the existence of the mortgages justified the claims and that strict foreclosure standards should not apply in bankruptcy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The court held that in bankruptcy, a creditor must demonstrate it has the right to enforce its claim at the time of filing. If a claimant cannot establish its entitlement to payment when the claim is filed, the claim is properly disallowed. The court rejected arguments for equitable relief and clarified that the validity of a claim in bankruptcy depends on enforceability under applicable state law. View "Bay United Holdings, LLC. v. INXS VII, LLC" on Justia Law

Members of the rap group 2 Live Crew, including Mark Ross, created five albums between 1986 and 1989. Through a written agreement, the group assigned the sound recording copyrights to Luke Records, a company owned by one of the group’s members. In 1995, following Luke Records’ bankruptcy, these copyrights were sold to Lil’ Joe Records. In 2000, Mark Ross filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy; his termination interests in these copyrights were never listed or addressed in his bankruptcy proceedings. Years later, within the statutory window, Ross, another group member, and heirs of a third served a notice attempting to terminate the copyright grants to Luke Records, as permitted by the Copyright Act.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially concluded that Ross’s termination interests did not enter his bankruptcy estate, interpreting the Copyright Act and Bankruptcy Code to exclude them. The court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the effectiveness of the termination notice, and the case proceeded to trial. After the jury’s factual findings, the district court concluded the termination notice was valid. Lil’ Joe Records appealed the district court’s final judgment, the denial of its motion for summary judgment, and the denial of its motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Ross’s termination interests were property of his bankruptcy estate under the Bankruptcy Code, notwithstanding the Copyright Act’s inalienability restriction. Because these interests were never scheduled or administered by the bankruptcy court, they remained with the bankruptcy estate when Ross attempted to exercise them. As a result, Ross could not validly sign the termination notice, and the group did not have the required majority to terminate the copyright grants. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lil' Joe Records, Inc. v. Won" on Justia Law

Donald Smith owned and operated a company called No Rust Rebar, along with four other related entities. All these entities were controlled by Smith, shared business locations, and had overlapping operations and assets. No Rust Rebar filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which was later converted to Chapter 7 liquidation after a creditor's motion. During the bankruptcy proceedings, the court found that Smith routinely commingled the assets of No Rust Rebar with those of the other entities, failed to observe corporate formalities, and treated the businesses as a single operation subject to his personal discretion.Following these findings, the bankruptcy court appointed a trustee, who moved to substantively consolidate the assets and liabilities of the four non-debtor entities with No Rust Rebar’s bankruptcy estate. All entities received notice of this motion and objected, arguing that substantive consolidation required a separate adversary proceeding and an additional evidentiary hearing. However, they did not challenge the merits of consolidation or the findings that led to it, focusing solely on procedural issues. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida affirmed the bankruptcy court’s consolidation order after the non-debtor entities appealed, again raising only procedural arguments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the bankruptcy court’s decision de novo for legal conclusions and for clear error as to factual findings. The Eleventh Circuit held that the bankruptcy court had the authority to order substantive consolidation based on its findings that the entities were alter egos with a substantial identity. The court also concluded that any procedural errors related to the style or process of the motion were harmless, as all parties had notice and an opportunity to be heard. The substantive consolidation order was affirmed. View "Smith v. Slott" on Justia Law

The case involves a business arrangement among AE OpCo, AAR, and Short Brothers, centered on a procurement contract. AAR’s subsidiary manufactured airline parts for Short Brothers, and AAR guaranteed its subsidiary’s performance. When AE OpCo acquired AAR’s business, it assumed the obligation to perform under the contract, while AAR guaranteed AE OpCo’s performance to Short Brothers. In turn, AE OpCo agreed to indemnify AAR if AE OpCo defaulted. Later, AE OpCo filed for bankruptcy and rejected the procurement contract, prompting both Short Brothers and AAR to file claims in the bankruptcy proceeding.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida considered three claims from AAR: an indemnification claim for potential liability to Short Brothers, a defense-costs claim for legal fees incurred in ongoing litigation with Short Brothers in Northern Ireland, and a bankruptcy-costs claim for attorneys’ fees incurred in the bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court disallowed the indemnification claim as contingent and barred by 11 U.S.C. § 502(e)(1)(B), allowed the defense-costs claim as a fixed, non-contingent claim, and disallowed the bankruptcy-costs claim as a post-petition unsecured claim.On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s disallowance of the indemnification claim, holding that under Delaware law, the settlement between AE OpCo and Short Brothers did not release AE OpCo’s liability, so AAR remained co-liable and the claim was properly disallowed under § 502(e)(1)(B). The appellate court also affirmed the allowance of the defense-costs claim, finding it was not contingent since all events giving rise to liability had occurred. However, the court reversed the disallowance of the bankruptcy-costs claim, holding that neither § 502(b) nor § 506(b) barred allowance of such a claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "AE OPCO III, LLC v. AAR CORP." on Justia Law

The case involves a Florida-based title insurer that suffered significant financial setbacks, prompting a series of business restructurings and asset transfers. In 2009, the company entered a joint venture with another title insurance group, forming a new entity to handle certain business functions. Over subsequent years, the original company retained substantial assets and continued operations, but further financial decline led to a 2015 agreement in which it transferred assets and liabilities to its business partner, in exchange for the assumption of its policy liabilities. The Florida insurance regulator scrutinized and ultimately approved the transaction after requiring additional commitments from the acquiring party.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida later oversaw the company’s Chapter 11 proceedings. The appointed Creditor Trustee brought an adversary proceeding against the acquiring parties and related entities, alleging that the asset transfer constituted a fraudulent transfer under federal bankruptcy law and Florida statutes, and sought to impose successor liability and alter ego claims. The bankruptcy court held a bench trial, excluding portions of the Trustee’s expert valuation as unreliable, and found that the company had received reasonably equivalent value in the transaction. The court also rejected the successor liability and alter ego theories, finding insufficient evidence of continuity of ownership, improper purpose, or harm to creditors.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida affirmed the bankruptcy court’s rulings. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the record and affirmed the district court’s order. The Eleventh Circuit held that the bankruptcy court did not err in excluding the Trustee’s expert, that the asset transfer was for reasonably equivalent value and not fraudulent, and that the successor liability and alter ego claims failed for lack of evidence and legal sufficiency. View "Stermer v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A married couple, Carlos Del Amo and his wife, opened a joint checking account at TD Bank in Florida. The account’s signature card listed both their names and, in small print, stated that “joint accounts are owned as joint tenants with right of survivorship.” When Mr. Del Amo filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, he claimed the account as exempt property, arguing it was owned as a tenancy by the entirety—a form of ownership that protects the account from creditors of only one spouse under Florida law. Storey Mountain, a creditor, objected, contending that the account was not exempt because the signature card’s language created a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, not a tenancy by the entirety.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida found the statutory language unclear as to what constitutes “otherwise specified in writing” under Florida Statutes § 655.79(1). Relying on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand and Associates, the bankruptcy court held that, absent an express disclaimer of tenancy by the entirety on the signature card, the account was presumed to be held as a tenancy by the entirety. The court overruled Storey Mountain’s objection. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida affirmed, agreeing that the 2008 amendment to § 655.79(1) did not abrogate Beal Bank’s requirement for an express disclaimer.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower courts. The Eleventh Circuit held that, under Florida law, a joint bank account held by a married couple is presumed to be a tenancy by the entirety unless there is an explicit written disclaimer of that form of ownership. The court found that the language on the signature card was insufficient to constitute such a disclaimer, and thus the account was exempt property in the bankruptcy proceedings. View "Storey Mountain v. Del Amo" on Justia Law

A dispute arose after a rare vehicle, originally owned by a Wisconsin man, was stolen and shipped to Europe. Richard Mueller inherited the vehicle and sold part of his interest to Joseph Ford. Years later, TL90108 LLC (“TL”) purchased the vehicle overseas and, upon attempting to register it in the United States, was notified that Ford and Mueller were the owners of record. Ford and Mueller sued TL in Wisconsin state court for a declaratory judgment and replevin. The trial court dismissed the case on statute-of-repose grounds, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review. While the appeal was pending, Ford filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy but did not list TL as a creditor or provide it with formal notice of the bankruptcy proceedings or relevant deadlines.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida set a deadline under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c) for creditors to file complaints objecting to the discharge of debts. TL did not file a complaint before this deadline, as it was unaware of the relevant facts supporting a fraud claim until later discovery in the Wisconsin litigation. After learning of Ford’s alleged fraud, TL moved to extend the deadline and file a complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c), arguing for equitable tolling and asserting a due process violation due to inadequate notice. The bankruptcy court denied the motion, relying on the Eleventh Circuit’s precedent in In re Alton, which held that equitable tolling does not apply to Rule 4007(c) deadlines.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. The court held that its prior decision in In re Alton remains binding and precludes equitable tolling of Rule 4007(c)’s deadline, even in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The court also held that TL’s actual notice of the bankruptcy proceeding satisfied due process, and thus, the deadline could not be extended on that basis. View "TL90108 LLC v. Ford" on Justia Law

Stanley Watson, a former county commissioner, accused Sheneeka Bradsher and Zarinah Ali of stealing his wallet at a bar. Despite no evidence, he repeatedly demanded their arrest and threatened police officers who did not comply. Bradsher was arrested for disorderly conduct, but later released when Watson's wallet was found in his car. Bradsher and Ali sued Watson for slander, battery, and false imprisonment, winning a $150,500 judgment.Watson filed for bankruptcy, and Bradsher and Ali sought to except their judgment from discharge. The bankruptcy court found Watson genuinely believed the women stole his wallet, discharging the slander and battery debts but ruling the false imprisonment debts nondischargeable. The district court affirmed the nondischargeability of the false imprisonment debts but remanded for further clarification on the slander claim. On remand, the bankruptcy court found the slander debt dischargeable, attributing two-thirds of the damages to false imprisonment and one-third to slander.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding Watson willfully and maliciously caused the women’s confinement, making the false imprisonment debts nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The court also upheld the bankruptcy court’s allocation of damages, finding it supported by the evidence. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgments in favor of Bradsher and Ali. View "Watson v. Bradsher" on Justia Law

BenShot, LLC, a family-owned business, sells a unique drinking glass design featuring a bullet "penetrating" the side. 2 Monkey Trading, LLC and Lucky Shot USA, LLC (the Debtors) sell similar glasses imported from China, falsely advertised as "Made in the United States." BenShot sued the Debtors in the Eastern District of Wisconsin for Lanham Act violations and Wisconsin common law. A jury found in favor of BenShot, awarding punitive damages and determining the Debtors acted maliciously or in intentional disregard of BenShot's rights.Following the jury verdict, the Debtors filed for bankruptcy under Subchapter V of Chapter 11. BenShot argued that the jury award was a non-dischargeable debt for willful and malicious injury under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(6) and 1192(2). The Debtors moved to dismiss, claiming § 523(a)(6) only applied to individual debtors, not corporate debtors like themselves. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida agreed with the Debtors and dismissed BenShot's complaint, relying on similar interpretations by other bankruptcy courts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that under § 1192, both individual and corporate debtors cannot discharge any debts of the kind listed in § 523(a). The court found the plain language of § 1192 unambiguous, applying to both individual and corporate debtors, and that "debt" as defined in the Bankruptcy Code does not distinguish between individual or corporate debtors. The court reversed the bankruptcy court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Benshot, LLC v. 2 Monkey Trading, LLC" on Justia Law