You are here

Section 350 Closing and Reopening Cases.

In re Quigley, No. 12-12371 (Oct. 10, 2017)
After this case had been closed for some time, the Debtors filed a lawsuit against the Pages, among others, for violation of an agreement that licensed the Pages’ use of a trademark that had been transferred to the Debtors post-bankruptcy. In response, the Pages moved to reopen the case asserting that the Debtors misled the trustee by claiming that the trademark was worthless and by failing to disclose the license agreement, which at the time was held by one of the Debtors’ business entities. Because the essential facts were disclosed and discussed at the meeting of creditors and the Trustee chose not to pursue the potential asset during the bankruptcy case or after he learned of the Debtors’ post-bankruptcy lawsuit against the Pages, the Court denied the motion to reopen.
WL Cite: 2017 WL 4535852
In re Long (Sept. 26, 2014)
While in bankruptcy, the Debtor filed a lawsuit in district court, but did not disclose the lawsuit in the bankruptcy proceeding. After the bankruptcy case closed, the defendant moved to dismiss the district court lawsuit on the grounds that the Debtor was judicially estopped from pursing to the suit for failure to disclose it in bankruptcy. The Debtor then moved to reopen the bankruptcy case to disclose the lawsuit. The Court abated the motion to reopen to allow the district court to decide the judicial estoppel issue because the issue was first raised in district court and the Court wanted to avoid duplication of efforts, infringing on the authority of the district court, and piecemeal resolution of the issues. The Court also found that there was not currently an asset to administer in the case so there was no cause to reopen the case. Indeed, there would be no cause to reopen unless and until the district court lawsuit and any appeal from that decision were resolved.
WL Cite: In re Long, No. 08-12216, ECF No. 76 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2014)