In re Intercorp International, Ltd.

4 Citing cases

  1. Sapphire Development, LLC v. McKay

    523 B.R. 1 (D. Conn. 2014)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that a judgment creditor of the trustee of the sole owner of the debtor was a "party in interest" under section 1109 when "[a]n outcome of the bankruptcy proceeding that distributed any part of the property or proceeds therefrom to [debtor's] other creditors would ... harm his interest" and that interest is not "purely derivative of another party's rights"

    In addition, where the evidence of bad-faith filing is clear, a bankruptcy court may even impose monetary sanctions, including attorneys' fees, on the filer under Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and other provisions. See, e.g., In re Intercorp Int'l, Ltd., 309 B.R. 686, 692–93 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2004); In re St. Stephen's 350 E. 116th St., 313 B.R. 161, 171 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2004). Given the strong evidence of Sapphire's bad-faith conduct, already addressed in hearings before the bankruptcy court, it may well be within the bankruptcy court's discretion to impose sanctions—but that issue is for the bankruptcy court to decide in the first instance.

  2. In re Okounev

    Case No.: 16-31599 (AMN) (Bankr. D. Conn. Sep. 18, 2018)

    In the context of filing a bankruptcy petition, "[c]ounsel must be able to articulate the sound reasons that led to the decision to file a bankruptcy." In re George, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 1415, at *39 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 2017); see also In re Intercorp International, Ltd., 309 B.R. 686, 694 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2004)(holding a debtor must have some intention of reorganizing (citing In re Cohoes Indus. Terminal, 931 F.2d 222, 227 (2d Cir. 1991)). Filing a petition for the purpose of "[d]elaying state court litigation is woefully insufficient to support the filing of bankruptcy in good faith without an accompanying purpose of reorganization or a 'fresh start' for the client."

  3. Desiderio v. Parikh (In re Parikh)

    508 B.R. 572 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2014)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that judgment denying discharge mooted contempt sanctions for failure to provide documents under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004

    Thus, sanctions pursuant to Rule 9011(b)(1)'s “improper purpose” clause are inappropriate where delay or frustration to creditors occurs because a debtor needs breathing room to legitimately pursue discharge or reorganization. Cf. In re Intercorp Int'l, Ltd., 309 B.R. 686, 697 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2004) (sanctioning attorney under the improper purpose prong who filed petition to stay foreclosure sale where there was “no reasonable likelihood that the debtor intended to reorganize and no reasonable probability that it would eventually emerge from bankruptcy proceedings”) (quoting Cohoes, 931 F.2d at 227). Determining whether an investigation was reasonable pursuant to Rule 9011(b)(3) requires a case-by-case, fact intensive analysis dependent on all the circumstances.

  4. In re Rivera

    342 B.R. 435 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2006)   Cited 19 times
    Finding it appropriate to sanction a law firm for repeated violations of Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9011 by its attorney

    The proof of violations is "clear and convincing" in every sense, and is "substantial." See In re Intercorp Int'l, Ltd., 309 B.R. 686, 692-94 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004) (applying a "clear" and "substantial" evidence standard of proof as to a Rule 9011 violation) (relying on In re C-TC 9th Ave. P'ship, 113 F.3d 1304, 1310 (2d Cir. 1997) and In re Cohoes Indus. Terminal, Inc., 931 F.2d 222, 227-28 (2d Cir. 1991)); accord In re St. Stephen's 350 East 116th St., 313 B.R. 161, 170-71 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004).