Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Appellate Court Finds Plaintiffs' Claims Under Section 362 Not Automatically Stayed

By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr. and Malcolm Bates
July 01, 2021

In Ritchie Capital Management v. McGladrey & Pullen, 2020 IL App (1st) 180806, 155 N.E.3d 597, reh'g denied (Apr. 29, 2020), appeal denied, 159 N.E.3d 935 (Ill. 2020), the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a state trial court's order dismissing, as time-barred, a complaint filed more than nine years after the cause of action had accrued. In doing so, the appellate court found that the plaintiffs' claims had not been "automatically" stayed pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. As a result, the statute of limitations applicable to those claims had not been tolled.

Background

In October 2008, a group of hedge funds known collectively as the "Lancelot Funds" filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. During the Chapter 7 case, several investors filed lawsuits related to the Lancelot Funds, seeking recovery from nondebtor third parties based on claims arising out of alleged professional malpractice. The Chapter 7 trustee administering the Lancelot Funds' bankruptcy estate opposed the investor actions under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, arguing that the investors' claims against a group of accounting firms and their principals (collectively referred to herein as McGladrey) who had audited the Lancelot Funds pre-bankruptcy were property of the bankruptcy estate. The trustee asserted, therefore, that the investors' lawsuits were barred by operation of the automatic stay of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. Nonetheless, one group of investors known as "McKinley" proceeded with its state court action against McGladrey for professional malpractice and negligent misrepresentation.

In July 2009, the bankruptcy court ruled that McKinley's claims against McGladrey were property of the debtors' estate under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code and, consequently, were subject to the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court further opined that the trustee would be entitled to injunctive relief even if the investors' claims were not estate property because such claims were "substantially related to the estate." In so finding, the bankruptcy court cited its general equity powers under Section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code, which authorizes bankruptcy courts to "issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions" of the Code.  The bankruptcy court provided this alternative basis for its holding based on substantial similarities between the trustee's action against McKinley and the case of Fisher v. Apostolou, 155 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 1998). In Fisher, a Chapter 7 trustee successfully sought to enjoin allegedly defrauded investors from pursuing a non-debtor party against whom the trustee had commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy case. Reviewing the bankruptcy court's injunction, the Fisher court rejected the application of the automatic stay to the investors' claims, but affirmed the bankruptcy court's use of its general equity powers under Section 105 to enjoin the claims. In citing to Fisher, the bankruptcy court applied Section 105 and issued an order enjoining McKinley's claims, finding that such injunctive relief was warranted in order to "promote the general policies of bankruptcy and an orderly administration of the estate." The injunctive order was subsequently dissolved in September 2015.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit Image

Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.