By: Justin A. Klingenberg

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In Boellner v. Dowden, the Eighth Circuit held that it is within the discretion of the bankruptcy court to order substantive consolidation of spouses’ bankruptcy estates when they file separate petitions for chapter 7 bankruptcy. In Boellner, the debtors, Samuel and Marilyn Boellner, who were married and living separately, each filed their own petition for chapter 7 bankruptcy on the same day. James Dowden was assigned as trustee in their respective cases. In addition to living apart and having individual credit card debt, the debtors “had separate insurance policies, separate interests in business, separate annuities, and separate IRAs….” However, the debtors shared a checking account, several credit cards, a leased car, and had jointly withdrawn funds from IRAs. Additionally, the debtors shared obligations for state and federal taxes and attorney’s fees from a previous civil case. The trustee filed a motion for joint administration and substantive consolidation, arguing that the debtors’ “assets, liabilities, and handling of financial affairs were substantially the same,” and permitting them to “maintain separate bankruptcy estates would prejudice the creditors.” The debtors disagreed and argued that they should be permitted to maintain separate bankruptcy estates because it would allow Samuel, the husband, to choose federal exemptions and Marilyn, the wife, to choose state exemptions. After comparing the schedules filed by each spouse, the bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the trustee, and ordered substantive consolidation. The debtors appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and the trustee removed the appeal to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order. Subsequently, the debtors appealed to the Eighth Circuit, contending that the substantive consolidation order was an abuse of the bankruptcy court’s discretion. In determining whether substantive consolidation was appropriate, the Eighth Circuit adopted a two-prong factor test articulated by the Eleventh Circuit that considered “(1) whether there is a substantial identity between the assets, liabilities, and handling of financial affairs between the debtor spouses; and (2) whether harm will result from permitting or denying consolidation.” In assessing the first factor, the Eighth Circuit found that the bankruptcy court’s reliance on the debtor’s statements of financial affairs and bankruptcy schedules was appropriate. In concluding the first factor had been fulfilled and, thus, substantial identity had been established, the Eighth Circuit emphasized the bankruptcy court’s finding it peculiar that Marilyn claimed ownership of the home while Samuel claimed ownership of the household’s goods. In its analysis of the second factor, the Eight Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s finding that the evidence was sufficient to establish harm to creditors, particularly because the debtor’s “separate estates would have significantly less value than if their cases were substantively consolidated and [they] were forced to choose either federal or state exemptions.” Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit held that, since substantial identity had been established and separate estates would greatly prejudice the debtor’s creditors, the bankruptcy court was within its discretion in ordering substantive consolidation.

By: James M. Kerins

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In Pensco Trust Co. v. Tristar Esperanza Props., LLC (In re Tristar Esperanza Props., LLC), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a creditors claim, based upon a debtor’s failure to pay an arbitration award, must be subordinated pursuant to section 510 (b) of the Bankruptcy Code. In Tristar, Jane O'Donnell purchased a minority membership interest in Tristar, a limited liability company, and exercised her right to withdraw her membership interest. Subsequently, debtor filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and commenced an adversary proceeding against O'Donnell seeking to subordinate her claims under section 510 (b) of the Bankruptcy Code. O'Donnell insisted that section 510 (b) of the Bankruptcy Code did not apply because the claim was “not for damages, but for a fixed, admitted debt.” Additionally, O'Donnell claimed that section 510 (b) should not apply because the claim “does not arise from the purchase or sale of securities” because she converted her equity interest to a debt claim before debtor filed its bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy court rejected O'Donnell’s arguments and held that the subordination clause of section 510 (b) “sweeps broadly.” Consequently, the bankruptcy court “broadly interpreted” the phrase “arises from” to mandate subordination whenever there is a “causal relationship between the claim and the purchase” or sale of securities. Furthermore, although O'Donnell did not “enjoy the benefits of equity ownership on the date of the petition,” according to the bankruptcy court, since O'Donnell bargained for an equity position she therefore, “embraced the risks that position entails.” On appeal, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit[xiii] and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit both affirmed.

By: Anthony J. Ienna

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In In re Bayou Shores SNF, LLC, a district court found that a bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to thwart the regulation of Medicare and Medicaid funds of a non-compliant debtor. In particular, the district court, siding with the majority view, determined that 42 U.S.C. 405(h) bars bankruptcy courts from interfering with decisions made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) relating to Medicare and Medicaid.

By: Micaela Manley

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In In re Northshore Mainland Services, Inc. , the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware dismissed Bahamian companies’ chapter 11 cases, relating to the construction of the Baha Mar Resort, under the abstention provision of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), and refrained from dismissal of the Delaware companies’ chapter 11 case.[1] Construction of the Baha Mar Resort, which included four new hotels, a Las Vegas style casino, and a premier Jack Nicklaus Signature 18-hole golf course, broke ground in February 2011 with completion estimated by November 20, 2014.[2] By 2013 it was clear that the contractors were not going to meet the planned schedule.[3] Almost two years later, the Baha Mar Resort remained incomplete.[4] Subsequently, the debtors filed chapter 11 petitions under the Code with the Delaware bankruptcy court.[5] In addition, the debtors requested recognition of the chapter 11 cases in the Bahamas.[6] The Bahamian Attorney General opposed the debtors’ request for recognition and asked the Bahamian court to issue an order winding up of all the Bahamian debtors’ business.[7] The Bahamian court concluded that subordinating the local proceedings to the Delaware proceedings where the locale had little connection to the debtors would not be equitable.[8] The Bahamian Court thereafter dismissed the winding up proceedings for certain debtors and appointed joint provisional liquidators to seven others.[9] In the meantime, two of the debtors filed motions in the bankruptcy court to dismiss their chapter 11 cases.[10] According to the debtors, the best interests of the debtors and creditors would be served by dismissal of the chapter 11 cases and the continuation of proceedings in the Bahamas.[11] Ultimately, the United States bankruptcy court dismissed the cases of the Bahamian debtors under Section 305(a) of the Code.[12] The bankruptcy court, however, refused to dismiss the chapter 11 case filed by Northshore Mainland Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation.[13]

By: Christopher Atlee F. Arcitio

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In general, a debtor may, subject to court approval, retain and pay professionals, including attorneys, under section 327 of the chapter 11 Bankruptcy Code. It is unclear, however, who is responsible for paying a professional retained by a debtor’s professional. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho held in a chapter 11 bankruptcy case that a court-approved accountant can be statutorily barred from recovering legal fees from the debtor. Debtor, Walker Land & Cattle, L.L.C., filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy and requested permission to use cash collateral. Upon the request of Creditor, Wells Fargo Bank, the court required the debtor to provide audited financial statements. The court approved the employment of accountant Judith K. Bower (“Bower”) to conduct the audit. Bower conducted the audit within five months. After the audit, the creditor issued a notice to depose Bower. The creditor subsequently issued a subpoena for Bower to testify at the debtor’s confirmation hearing. Bower retained counsel for both the deposition and hearing. Bower subsequently sought $7,735 for reimbursement of her attorney’s fees from the debtor. The court denied the request, finding that Bower did not prove the legal fees were necessary expenses under section 330 of the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, Bower could not recover such fees as reimbursement expenses.

By: Lindsay Lersner


St. John’s Law Student


American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff


The culmination of a chapter 11 case is typically a plan that provides for payment to creditors in accordance with the priority scheme in Section 507 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (“Code”).[1] In In re Jevic Holding Corp. , the Third Circuit held that in certain rare circumstances, bankruptcy courts have the discretion to approve structured dismissals, which do not comply with Section 507 of the Code.[2] A structured dismissal is a settlement proposed to the court that provides for the distribution of the debtor’s assets to creditors.[3] In In re Jevic , the debtor proposed a structured dismissal after reaching a consensus with a majority of its creditors.[4] The Jevic truck drivers (“Drivers”), former employees of Jevic with a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) claim,[5] however, did not agree to the settlement.[6] In opposing bankruptcy court approval of the settlement and the structured dismissal, the Drivers argued that (1) the Code does not allow for structured dismissals and (2) the settlement paid the creditors with claims junior to the Drivers’ WARN claims and therefore violated the priority scheme established under Section 507.[7] Bankruptcy settlements generally follow the absolute priority rule, which requires that creditors be paid in the order of their priority under Section 507.[8] The bankruptcy court overruled the Drivers’ objection and approved the settlement providing for the dismissal of the debtor’s chapter 11 case upon payment of certain administrative and tax expenses which were lower in priority than the Drivers’ claims.[9] On appeal, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.[10] The Drivers appealed again, and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit also affirmed.[11]

By: Megan Kuzniewski

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

11 U.S.C. Section 523 lists certain debts that may not be discharged by a debtor’s bankruptcy.[1] In particular, 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A) (“Section 523(a)(2)(A)”) provides that a debtor who files a bankruptcy will not be discharged of debts that were obtained by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.”[2] False representations, such as those described in Section 523(a)(2)(A), carry a scienter requirement which requires that it be shown that an individual knowingly made false statements or representations.[3] In In re Bocchino , the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that gross recklessness satisfies the scienter requirement of Section 523(a)(2)(A).[4] In S.E.C. v. Bocchino , the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) filed a lawsuit against Bocchino, a stockbroker, in the District Court of the Southern District of New York.[5] The district court found Bocchino civilly liable for “inducing investors via high pressure sales tactics and material misrepresentations” and entered a judgment against him totaling $178,967.55, including disgorgement of fees, interest, and civil penalties.[6] Thereafter, Bocchino filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.[7] The SEC petitioned the bankruptcy court for a judgment declaring the judgments against Bocchino nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A).[8] The SEC argued that Bocchino had obtained the funds “by… false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.”[9] Bocchino had sought investors for two ventures that turned out to be fraudulent.[10] He began seeking out investments without doing any independent research into the ventures, despite there being cause for suspicion.[11] The bankruptcy court found that, although “Bocchino did not knowingly make any false statements,” the scienter requirement of Section 523(a)(2)(A) “may be satisfied by grossly reckless behavior.”[12] The bankruptcy court discharged the civil penalty portion of the judgment but concluded that the remaining portions of the judgment were nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A).[13] Bocchino appealed this finding.[13] On appeal, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision,[15] and thereafter, the Third Circuit also affirmed the lower court.[16]

By: Peter Collorafi

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In August 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York determined, inter alia, that the Joint Compulsory Liquidators for Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA (“Hellas II”) could amend their original complaint to include a foreign fraudulent transfer claim under Section 423 of the United Kingdom Insolvency Act of 1986 (“Section 423”) against certain United States defendants. The plaintiffs filed their initial complaint seeking to avoid and recover an initial transfer of approximately €1.57 billion made by Hellas II to its parent entity and a subsequent series of transfers totaling €973.7 million made to several named defendants and an unnamed class of transferees. The plaintiffs’ initial complaint contained actual and constructive fraudulent transfer claims under New York law in addition to an unjust enrichment claim under unspecified law. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ New York law fraudulent transfer claims for lack of standing and, consequently, the plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint.

By: Nicolas Berg

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In certain instances, a professional, such as a financial advisor, may contract the right to receive a “success fee” from a debtor in bankruptcy.[1] The courts have established different tests for awarding a success fee.[2] In In re Valence Technology , the United States District Court in the Western District of Texas held that KPMG was entitled to a success fee from Valence Tech for closing a $50 million dollar debt-equity conversion, but it was not entitled to a similar fee for closing a $20 million capital loan.[3] After filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy, Valence Tech hired KPMG to assist with necessary financial restructuring advice.[4] Pursuant to their agreement, if KPMG’s work resulted in “any consideration” from Valence Tech’s primary financier, Berg & Berg, KPMG would be entitled to a “success fee” of 1.25% of the value of that consideration or no less than $500,000.[5] Valence Tech received two payments from Berg & Berg: (1) a $50 million debt-to-equity conversion and (2) a $20 million capital loan.[6] While KPMG contended that it was entitled to the 1.25% success fee for both payments, Valence Tech argued that it should not have to pay the success fee for either payment.[7] The bankruptcy court concluded that under the agreement KPMG was entitled to the success fee for the debt-to-equity conversion.[8] The court, however, denied KPMG’s request for the success fee for the capital loan.[9] Valence Tech appealed the bankruptcy court’s ruling to the district court maintaining that KPMG was not entitled to a success fee for either transaction while KPMG cross-appealed to argue for payment of the success fee in connection with the capital loan.[10] To settle the dispute, the district court analyzed the agreement to determine whether the capital loan should be included in the meaning of “any consideration.”[11] Noting the sophistication of the parties, the district court found the contract described two potential scenarios: (1) a “Private Placement” coming from any party other than Berg & Berg resulting in a 2.5% fee for KPMG, and (2) a “Private Placement” coming from Berg & Berg reducing KPMG’s fee to 1.25%.[12] The district court reasoned that either way the contract defined “Private Placement” as having “Private Placement Value,” which necessarily included equity linked financing.[13] Therefore, according to the district court, the $50 million debt-equity conversion qualified as a “Private Placement,” which entitled KPMG to the agreed upon 1.25% “success fee.”[14] The $20 million capital loan did not qualify because it was not linked to any equity.[15]

By: Adam Lau

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In In re Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., a bankruptcy court held that rejection of a lease by a debtor constituted a pre-petition breach of the lease and was not a termination of the lease. The debtor, Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., entered into a lease agreement with TST/Commerz East Building (“TST”) that was set to expire on December 31, 2020. Two years into the lease, debtor subleased a part of the space to Maritime Overseas Corporation (“Maritime”). After filing voluntary petitions under chapter 11, the debtor and Maritime entered into a stipulation with the assignee of TST whereby the debtor and Maritime agreed to reject the lease and the sublease. Maritime then vacated the premises and proceeded to file a claim against debtor for $30,788.32 for return of its security deposit under the sublease, but amended its claim, adding $367,858 for damages from rejection of the sublease, including moving expenses, increased rent, electricity, and legal fees relating to Maritime’s relocation. The debtor objected to the amended claim, and asked the court to disallow the claim for rejection damages and to limit the recovery to the amount of the security deposit. The debtor argued that the rejection of the lease constituted a termination of the lease, which would, under Clause 2 in the sublease, preclude Maritime from recovering rejection damages. Clause 2 provided that, “this Sublease shall terminate (in whole or in part, as applicable) on the date of such termination as if such date had been specified in this Sublease as the Expiration Date and Tenant shall have no liability to Subtenant with respect to such termination.” The debtor relied on Chatlos Systems, Inc. v. Kaplan, where the court held that a debtor’s rejection of a non-residential lease resulted in termination of the lease. In response, Maritime argued the Bankruptcy Code establishes that the rejection of the overlease was not a termination of the lease but merely a pre-petition breach. The court was not persuaded by the debtor’s argument, finding that the Chatlos case was not applicable because that case involved a lessee of the debtor who chose to remain in possession of the property, whereas Maritime did not elect to remain on the premises. However, while the bankruptcy court agreed with Maritime’s argument that the rejection of the lease constituted a breach and not termination, Maritime was still precluded from claiming rejection damages because Clause 22(j) in the sublease provided that the “subtenant shall look solely to Tenant's interests in the Lease to enforce Tenant's obligations hereunder and shall not seek any damages against Tenant or any of the Tenant's Related Parties.”