Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled May 12, 2023

BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Kuskie

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:22-cv-00435
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
3
BankruptcyCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In BMO Harris Bank v. Kuskie, Judge Menendez stayed all proceedings because claims may belong to Capitol Sales’s bankruptcy estate.

Who this affects

The stay affects BMO Harris Bank N.A., Kenneth Kuskie, John Stedman, Susan Stedman, Curtis A. Hayes, and the claims and proceedings involving Third-Party Defendant Capitol Sales Company, Inc.

What happened

BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Kuskie involves claims against Capitol Sales Company, Inc. and several individuals. Capitol Sales filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and the court had already stayed the claims against the company under the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic-stay rule. BMO also had asked to change an earlier order, dismiss some claims without prejudice, and file a new complaint.

The bankruptcy trustee indicated that BMO’s fraudulent-transfer claims against the shareholders, and possibly its fiduciary-duty claims, belonged to the bankruptcy estate. The court explained that claims belonging to the estate generally must be pursued by the bankruptcy trustee, not an individual creditor, and are subject to the automatic stay. The court also found that the other claims were sufficiently connected to make continuing the case impractical.

Judge Menendez stayed all proceedings in the case until further order. The parties must provide updates about the bankruptcy every six months beginning December 1, 2023, and must file a final update within two weeks after the bankruptcy ends.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Kuskie · No. 0:22-cv-00435
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
May 12, 2023

Background

On January 4, 2023, the court had granted in part and denied in part several motions to dismiss. On December 27, 2022, Third-Party Defendant Capitol Sales Company, Inc. filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The court then stayed the litigation as to Capitol Sales under the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic-stay provision, 11 U.S.C. § 362, and required updates about the bankruptcy proceedings.

BMO later moved to alter or amend the earlier order, dismiss the fraudulent-transfer claims against the shareholders without prejudice, and obtain permission to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint. The court took that motion under advisement. In May 2023, the parties informed the court that the Chapter 7 trustee believed BMO’s fraudulent-transfer claims against the shareholders, and possibly its fiduciary-duty claims, belonged to the bankruptcy estate. The parties made different requests concerning whether and how the case should proceed, including requests to stay some or all claims.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that judicial economy and efficiency supported staying all proceedings. The parties appeared to agree that, at minimum, BMO’s fraudulent-transfer claims were property of the bankruptcy estate. The court explained that causes of action the debtor could have brought belong to the debtor and, by extension, the bankruptcy trustee, rather than to individual creditors. Creditors therefore lack standing—legal authority—to pursue claims belonging to the bankruptcy trustee.

The court also concluded that the fraudulent-transfer claims were subject to the automatic stay because pursuing them would involve exercising control over property of the bankruptcy estate. To the extent the remaining claims were not automatically stayed, the court found that they were so intertwined with the other claims that proceeding with them at that stage was unworkable.

Disposition

The court exercised its discretion to stay all proceedings in the case. The stay remains in place until further order of the court. The parties must submit letters every six months, beginning December 1, 2023, about the progress of the bankruptcy proceedings. Within two weeks after those proceedings conclude, counsel must file a final update. The order does not state a separate disposition of BMO’s pending motion to alter or amend the earlier order. Judge Katherine Menendez signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.