July 7 - Members and Subscribers - Welcome to the new and improved abi.org! - If you have not already done so, please reset your ABI password to access the site. Click "Login" and then "Forgot Password"
In Peterson v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. , the Seventh Circuit held that the allegations in a legal malpractice complaint by the trustee for Lancelot Investors Fund and other entities in bankruptcy (collectively “the Funds”), was plausible on its face.[1] In Peterson , the trustee filed suit against the Funds’ law firm for failing to detect the peril and curtail the risks pertaining to the Funds.[2] The Funds loaned money to and invested in vehicles owned by Thomas Petters, which, in turn, was supposed to finance Costco’s consumer-electronics inventory.[3] The Funds’ advances were to be secured by deposits made by Costco, not Peters, into a lockbox bank account.[4] However, Costco never deposited money into the account.[5] All the money came from a Petters entity.[6] In reality, Petters never had any dealings with Costco, and the whole set up was a Ponzi scheme.[7] Once the scheme collapsed, the Funds also collapsed.[8] Consequently, the Funds filed for relief under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.[9] The chapter 7 trustee for the Funds brought a cause of action against Katten, the law firm which acted as transactions counsel for the Funds, claiming that the law firm had a duty to inform its clients that the actual arrangement posed a risk because Petters was not actually running a real business.[10] In granting the law firm’s motion to dismiss, the district court held the Funds “knowingly took the risk and cannot blame the firm for failing to give business advice.”[11] After the trustee appealed the motion to dismiss, the court of appeals reversed the district court decision, holding the firm was liable not for failing to provide business advice but for failing to inform its clients of “the different legal forms that are available to carry out the business and how risks differ with different legal forms.”[12] Clients do not have to take the advice of their attorneys, but attorneys need to advise clients.[13]
In In re Dobbs , a Mississippi bankruptcy court held that it had the authority, to sanction and to permanently disbar an attorney from practicing in its district.[1] A debtor and his wife filed a joint chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in 2013 and hired an attorney (“First Attorney”) to represent them.[2] Following dismissal of the original 2013 case, the First Attorney filed a subsequent 2015 bankruptcy petition on behalf of the debtor but not the debtor’s wife[3]. The 2015 bankruptcy petition was accompanied with a Certificate of Credit Counseling (“First Certificate”) falsely reflecting that the debtor had attended a credit-counseling course on March 26, 2015,[4] as required by Section 109 of the United States Bankruptcy (“the Code”).[5] The 2015 bankruptcy petition listed the First Attorney as the debtor’s counsel and purportedly included the debtor’s electronic signature.[6] Following the court’s approval of the First Attorney’s request to withdraw as counsel, the debtor hired a new attorney (“Second Attorney”).[7] The Second Attorney filed another Certificate of Credit Counseling (“Second Certificate”) on behalf of the debtor, which indicated the debtor actually completed credit counseling on April 8, 2015.[8]
In Franklin v. Puerto Rico , the First Circuit held that Puerto Rico’s effort to restructure the debt of its public utilities through the enactment of its own municipal bankruptcy law, the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act (“Recovery Act”), was preempted by Section 903(1) of the United States Bankruptcy Code.[1] Amid the most serious fiscal crisis in its history, Puerto Rico’s public utilities are currently at risk of becoming insolvent.[2] Unlike states, Puerto Rico is a territory and “may not authorize its municipalities . . . to seek federal bankruptcy relief under chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.”[3] Thus, the Recovery Act was Puerto Rico’s attempt to “fill the gap” by providing relief on its own.[4] The Recovery Act was enacted to mirror chapter 9 and chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.[5] Those in favor of the Recovery Act argued that preemption would leave Puerto Rico with no means of relief.[6] However, the First Circuit disagreed, and noted that Puerto Rico could, as it had already, seek relief directly from Congress.[7]
In In re Medpoint Management , the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona held that cause existed under Section 707(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (“Bankruptcy Code”) to dismiss an involuntary chapter 7 petition filed against a bankrupt medical marijuana distributor.[1] Although Arizona permits its Department of Health Services to register dispensaries “operated on a not-for-profit basis” for the legal sale of marijuana,[2] the drug remains a Schedule I substance under the federal government’s Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”).[3] Because Arizona law requires dispensaries to maintain a nonprofit nature, there has been a “proliferation of dispensary-management entities which serve as repositories of dispensary revenues.”[4] When Medpoint Management LLC, a marijuana dispensary, defaulted on several loans and obligations, a group of creditors filed an involuntary chapter 7 petition against Medpoint.[5] The petitioning creditors’ claims against Medpoint included unpaid amounts under two promissory notes, unpaid fees arising under two distinct consulting agreements, and over $500,000 in outstanding loans.[6] Medpoint moved to dismiss arguing that the “unclean hands doctrine” prevents not only any marijuana-related business but also any of their creditors from seeking relief from the federal bankruptcy courts.[7] At a hearing on Medpoint’s motion, the United States Trustee voiced staunch concern regarding a trustee’s ability to administer a bankruptcy estate consisting of substances that are illegal under federal law: “So, you’re going to ask a trustee to look at a management contract for illegal activities, essentially. So what is that trustee going to do?”[8] The court agreed with Medpoint and the United States Trustee and dismissed the involuntary petition.[9]
In In re Nortel Inc. , the Bankruptcy Court denied a motion filed by former Canadian employees of the debtor Nortel Networks’ Canadian affiliates (the “Canadian Employees”) seeking leave to file proofs of claim after the expiration of the final date to file a proof of claim in the United States (the “Bar Date”).[1] On January 14, 2009, the United States Nortel affiliates (the “U.S. Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions of relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.[2] On the same day, the Canada affiliates (the “Canadian Debtors”) filed insolvency proceedings under Canada's Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCCAA”).[3] Pursuant to the rules of the CCCAA, the Ontario Superior Court appointed Ernst & Young Inc. (the “Monitor”) as monitor and Koskie Minsky, LLP (“Koskie Minsky”) as the law firm to represent the interests of all former employees of the Canadian Debtors, including the Canadian Employees.[4]
