 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp.11/12/1998
entioned nor scheduled any potential claim against the bank. However, after the bankruptcy court had confirmed the debtor's plan of reorganization, the debtor filed a lender liability action against the bank. The trial court dismissed the lender liability claim on grounds of res judicata, holding "that since [the debtor's] claims against the bank arose from the same series of transactions which were the subject of extensive prior bankruptcy proceedings, its failure to bring this particular claim to the bankruptcy court's attention violated fundamental principles of preclusion and barred Oneida [the debtor] from proceeding with the action." (Id. at p. 416 and fn.3, and p. 420.)
On appeal, the Third Circuit considered whether the debtor "is estopped from litigating this action by the preclusive effect of prior bankruptcy proceedings." (Oneida, supra, 848 F.2d at p. 415.) Even though the trial court had based its ruling on the res judicata effect of those prior bankruptcy proceedings, the appellate court instead ruled on different grounds, finding that " y virtue of [the debtor's] failure to disclose, equitable and judicial estoppel operate against further litigation by [the debtor]." (Ibid.) The court noted that " our separate orders were entered regarding the validity, priority and extent of the bank's claim against [the debtor]. The end result of these orders was the establishment and confirmation of the amount of the bank's claim . . . . No affirmative defenses, counterclaims or objection to the claim were pleaded or raised in connection with entry of these orders." (Id. at p. 419.) Further, the court stated that the "practical effect" of the debtor's claim would be to require the bank "to make restitution of the amount realized on its bankruptcy claim," which would constitute a "collateral attack on the bankruptcy court's order confirming the reorganization plan." (Id. at p. 418.) Even though the debtor's reorganization plan had been modified to allocate part of any recovery from the bank to the creditors, the Oneida court affirmed dismissal of the action " n order to preserve the requisite reliability of disclosure statements and to provide assurances to creditors regarding the finality of plans which they have voted to approve." (Ibid.) The Oneida court chose to "focus" its decision "on estoppel by reason of failure to disclose," (id. at p. 420) and found that " he result of a failure to disclose such claims triggers application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, operating against a subsequent attempt to prosecute the actions." (Id. at p. 417.) With specific respect to the concept of "judicial estoppel," the court concluded that the debtor's "failure to list its claim against the bank worked in opposition to preservation of the integrity of the system which the doctrine of judicial estoppel seeks to protect." (Id. at p. 419.) Hence the Oneida court ruled that in order to protect the "integrity of the system," it is appropriate even to deprive innocent creditors of the chance of recovery.
The Dissent in Oneida emphasized its concern for "Oneida's numerous unsecured creditors" who "had no way of protecting themselves and should not be required to contribute towards a windfall for an alleged wrongdoer." (Oneida, supra, 848 F.2d at 420.) The Dissent noted that the purpose of disclosure requirements in bankruptcy law is to protect creditors, and that this purpose was not served by eliminating what might have been a meritorious case against the bank. The Dissent noted that "the only real winner in the case as decided is the bank, whom the court has relieved of the responsibility of justifying its allegedly improper behavior." (Id. at pp. 422-423.) The Dissent continued by noting that the majority
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|