August 17, 2019

Archives for June 22, 2011

Attorneys’ Night Out: Eat, Drink, and Network for a Good Cause Tonight

Come on out Thursday evening for the Sixth Annual Attorneys’ Night Out, presented by the Young Lawyers Division of the Denver Bar Association. This social event is a great opportunity to network with other young lawyers, support an important cause, and celebrate The Legal Center’s protection of the rights of people with disabilities and older people in Colorado since 1976.

The event will be held on Thursday, June 23, from 5:30 to 9 pm at the Blake Street Tavern, which will be providing its brew and refreshments for the evening. All proceeds will benefit The Legal Center’s services for Colorado’s residents with disabilities, helping them to maintain their health, housing, and access to education and employment.

For more information or to RSVP, please contact Joshua Anderson at (303) 722-0300, ext. 216, or via email. Online registration can also be found here.

Attorneys’ Night Out 2011

Tenth Circuit: Court Lacked Jurisdiction when No Actual Controversy Existed at the Time Judgment Entered Regarding Insurance Policy

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Columbian Financial Corp. v. BancInsure, Inc. on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. Petitioner BancInsure appeals a declaratory judgment in favor of Respondents, which held that the claims-made directors-and-officers liability policy issued by Petitioner covered claims made until the expiration of the policy on May 11, 2010, even though the Kansas State Bank Commissioner had declared the bank insolvent and appointed the FDIC as receiver on August 22, 2008.

The Court vacated the district court’s judgement for lack of  jurisdiction when it was entered; “[a]lthough there may have been an actual controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act when suit was filed, no such controversy existed by the time of the district court’s ruling.” Only one claim had been made for which the policy might provide coverage and, during litigation, Petitioner stipulated that the policy did cover the claim. The parties also fail to present any reason to believe that a claim against the insureds would arise in the future that would lead to a dispute regarding coverage. Lastly, even though both parties desire a judicial construction of the policy provisions, there was no need for the district court to do so considering the fact that Petitioner had already agreed to coverage for the claim in question and no further claims under the policy are anticipated.

Tenth Circuit: Post-Petition Income Taxes Incurred During Chapter 12 Proceedings are Liabilities of the Individual Debtor and Not the Bankruptcy Estate

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Nazar on Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. Respondents declared bankruptcy and, with the permission of the bankruptcy court, sold several tracts of farm land. This sale created income tax liabilities. Respondents submitted a bankruptcy reorganization plan in which they proposed to treat their newly incurred tax liabilities as general unsecured claims; “as unsecured claims, the taxes would be entitled to no priority, paid only to the extent funds might be available after priority claims were satisfied, and any remaining unpaid portion would be eligible for discharge.” The IRS challenged this proposal and now brings this appeal.

Respondents claim that a special provision of Chapter 12 that makes their situation special. Under § 1222(a)(2)(A), certain claims that are otherwise entitled to priority payment status under § 507, but that happen to be owed to the government as a result of the sale of farm assets, are downgraded, treated as mere unsecured claims, and made eligible for discharge. Neither party disputes that the taxes at issue are owed to the government and are owed as a result of the sale of farm assets. However, there is a question as to whether the taxes are entitled to priority under § 507. Ultimately, the Court agreed with the IRS and found that “post-petition income taxes incurred during Chapter 12 proceedings are liabilities of the individual debtor and not the bankruptcy estate.” As such, they are not within the purview of the bankruptcy proceedings, are not eligible for treatment as unsecured claims, and are not to be included in the reorganization plan; the “taxes are due from the debtor personally, and the IRS’s recourse remains exclusively with the individual debtor, separate and apart from the Chapter 12 estate and unaffected by the bankruptcy discharge.”

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 6/21/11

On Tuesday, June 21, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and two unpublished opinions.


United States v. Milton

United States v. Senninger

No case summaries are available for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.