A weekly news service that publishes case summaries of the most recent important bankruptcy-law decisions, tracks major commercial bankruptcies, and reports on developments in bankruptcy reform in...
July 21 — A lawyer who represented a group of class action plaintiffs may have believed he was acting on their behalf when he filed an involuntary bankruptcy against the defendant in the class action case, but what he believed didn't change the truth.
Judge C. Darnell Jones, II, found that even if the lawyer mistakenly believed he was representing the plaintiffs in the bankruptcy, he wasn't in fact their lawyer. Therefore, the plaintiffs weren't properly notified about the bankruptcy through the lawyer, because he wasn't actually representing them.
Vincent Coppola represented the class action plaintiffs in a suit against their former employer, Joseph Straub. Coppola represented five named class members who were the representatives for 71 unnamed class members.
A jury entered a verdict of $635,278 against Straub and found he committed fraud by underpaying his employees.
Coppola filed an involuntary bankruptcy against Straub on behalf of three of the named class members. The bankruptcy court set a deadline for creditors to oppose the dischargeability of their debts. After that deadline had passed, Coppola filed a suit with the bankruptcy court objecting to the discharge of the jury verdict on behalf of the unnamed members of the class.
Straub argued that the suit wasn't filed in time because the deadline to object to dischargeability had passed. But the bankruptcy court found that the unnamed class members hadn't received proper notice of the deadline, and therefore the late-filed suit was allowed to proceed.
A debt can only be discharged if the creditor has “notice or actual knowledge” of the impending discharge under Section 523(a)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. If an attorney is actually representing a creditor, then notice of a bankruptcy given to the attorney generally satisfies any notice requirement as to the creditor.
In this case, Coppola had notice of the deadline, but the district court found that this was insufficient to give notice to the unnamed class members because he wasn't representing them at the relevant time.
In Coppola's fee agreement in the class action case, it specified that Coppola would represent the class “to verdict.” Therefore, once the verdict was issued in the class action suit, Coppola's representation of the plaintiffs officially ceased.
The district court said that when an attorney represents a plaintiff in one case, it doesn't automatically mean the attorney is an agent for that party in a different case between the same parties. The court also said that “an attorney given notice of the bankruptcy on behalf of a particular client is not called upon to review all of his or her files to ascertain whether any other client may also have a claim against the bankrupt,” quoting Maldonado v. Ramirez, 757 F.2d 48 (3d Cir. 1985).
Straub argued that Coppola believed he was representing the unnamed class members when he filed the involuntary bankruptcy. Straub noted that Coppola filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy for the jury verdict and listed the entire amount of the verdict, which was intended for all the plaintiffs.
“Even if Mr. Coppola's subjective understanding when he filed the involuntary bankruptcy action was that he was representing the unnamed class members, such subjective understanding does not change the fact that, contractually, he was not,” the court said.
The court said that the notice requirement is intended to protect creditors like the unnamed class members, who had “no existing contract” with Coppola, and that their right to notice “cannot be mitigated by the subjective belief of a person who was not contractually their attorney.”
Therefore, the court found that Coppola wasn't representing the unnamed class members when notice of the deadline was issued, and so they weren't bound to the deadline.
To contact the reporter on this story: Stephanie Cumings in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jay Horowitz at email@example.com
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)