17 B 07037, 17 A 00319
Plaintiff and judgment creditor Nick Boscarino filed an adversary complaint against debtor-defendant Lewis J. Borsellino, seeking (1) a determination that the debt owed to him by Borsellino was not dischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(6), and (2) denial of Borsellino’s bankruptcy discharge pursuant to § 727(a)(2)(A).  Boscarino subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that principles of claim and issue preclusion precluded Borsellino from relitigating the factual issues decided in prior state court proceedings. According to Boscarino, the state court found that (1) Borsellino was the owner of a boat which was subject to Boscarino’s citation lien at the time it was sold, and (2) Borsellino committed perjury in his state court trial testimony and backdated an agreement to shield ownership of the boat. In response, Borsellino argued that neither of those issues had been decided by the state court and claimed that he did not own the boat, as it had been transferred to an LLC that he managed. After reviewing the state court record and considering the elements of the statutory provisions at issue, the Court concluded that the necessary facts had been previously decided in Boscarino’s favor to support his § 523(a)(6) claim. Specifically, the Court held that the record established that (1) Borsellino had intentionally transferred the boat in violation of the citation lien, (2) the transfer caused injury to a property interest held by Boscarino, and (3) the transfer was made without just cause or excuse. Thus, summary judgment was granted as to the § 523(a)(6) count. The Court further held that, although the state court found that Borsellino owned the boat at the time of the transfer, it did not find that he had fraudulently created the agreement or committed perjury. As such, summary judgment was denied on the § 727(a)(2)(A) count.

17 B 06666, 17 A 00424
Dimitri Karras filed an adversary complaint against Bryce Stirlen, seeking a determination that a debt owed to him by Stirlen was not dischargeable pursuant to §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6). In response, Stirlen filed a counterclaim, asserting that he was entitled to set off the alleged debt pursuant to an asset purchase agreement (the “APA”) under which his company American Weapons Components, Inc. (“AWC”) acquired the assets of Lycurgan, Inc., a corporation owned by Karras. Subsequently, Karras filed two motions to dismiss the counterclaim under subsections (b)(1) and (b)(6) of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Karras argued that Stirlen’s setoff defense failed because Karras had no personal liability under the APA since he executed the agreement as Lycurgan’s agent. Karras further argued that only AWC, Stirlen’s corporate principal, could assert a setoff defense. Finding that both Karras and Stirlen were guarantors under the APA and that AWC’s registration was suspended for failure to pay taxes, the Court observed that a guarantor may raise any defense available to its principal, as well as any defenses or setoffs that the principal could have asserted had it not been unable to defend itself by virtue of its suspension. Ultimately, the Court found that Stirlen’s setoff defense was pleaded sufficiently to survive the 12(b)(6) motion and thus denied Karras’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In his 12(b)(1) motion, Karras argued that Stirlen had no standing to assert setoff because that right became estate property when Stilen filed for bankruptcy and only the chapter 7 trustee has standing to prosecute claims belonging to the estate. Karras further argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the setoff defense because that defense constituted a common law breach of contract claim, a non-core matter under Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011). The Court found that Stirlen could pursue his setoff right as an affirmative defense existing under California law (which governed the interpretation of the APA); that the “heart” of the Stern decision went to a bankruptcy court’s ability to render a final judgment which was not a matter at issue; and that even if the Court did not have plenary authority over Stirlen’s defense, resolution of the matter would fall within the Court’s ancillary jurisdiction. As such, the Court denied Karras’s 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.

18 B 28055
Debtor Fayyaz Karim (“Karim”) filed a motion for entry of an order of contempt against the Illinois Department of Revenue (“IDOR”), alleging that IDOR had violated the discharge injunction by attempting to collect a penalty debt that had been discharged in his chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The penalty debt at issue was imposed under the Illinois Cigarette Tax Act, 35 ILCS 130/1 et seq., which prohibits the possession of contraband cigarettes. According to Karim, the penalty was a tax penalty within the meaning of § 523(a)(7) and was discharged by operation of subsection (B) of that section, which provides for the discharge of tax penalties imposed with respect to a transaction or event that occurred more than three years before the petition date. IDOR responded by arguing that the penalty debt had not been discharged because it was either not a tax penalty within the meaning of § 523(a)(7) or, if the debt was a tax penalty within the meaning of the statute, because the penalty was imposed with respect to a transaction or event that occurred within three years of the petition date. The Court held that the penalty debt at issue was a tax penalty and that the relevant transaction or event for purposes of § 523(a)(7) occurred within three years of the petition date. As such, the Court found that the debt was nondischargeable and that IDOR thus did not violate the discharge injunction. Accordingly, the Court denied Karim’s motion for entry of an order of contempt.